Literature DB >> 29493475

Differential Effects of Chlorhexidine Skin Cleansing Methods on Residual Chlorhexidine Skin Concentrations and Bacterial Recovery.

Yoona Rhee1, Louisa J Palmer2, Koh Okamoto1, Sean Gemunden2, Khaled Hammouda2, Sarah K Kemble1, Michael Y Lin1, Karen Lolans3, Louis Fogg4, Derek Guanaga2, Deborah S Yokoe5, Robert A Weinstein1, Gyorgy Frendl2, Mary K Hayden1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND Bathing intensive care unit (ICU) patients with 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG)-impregnated cloths decreases the risk of healthcare-associated bacteremia and multidrug-resistant organism transmission. Hospitals employ different methods of CHG bathing, and few studies have evaluated whether those methods yield comparable results. OBJECTIVE To determine whether 3 different CHG skin cleansing methods yield similar residual CHG concentrations and bacterial densities on skin. DESIGN Prospective, randomized 2-center study with blinded assessment. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING Healthcare personnel in surgical ICUs at 2 tertiary-care teaching hospitals in Chicago, Illinois, and Boston, Massachusetts, from July 2015 to January 2016. INTERVENTION Cleansing skin of one forearm with no-rinse 2% CHG-impregnated polyester cloth (method A) versus 4% CHG liquid cleansing with rinsing on the contralateral arm, applied with either non-antiseptic-impregnated cellulose/polyester cloth (method B) or cotton washcloth dampened with sterile water (method C). RESULTS In total, 63 participants (126 forearms) received method A on 1 forearm (n=63). On the contralateral forearm, 33 participants received method B and 30 participants received method C. Immediately and 6 hours after cleansing, method A yielded the highest residual CHG concentrations (2500 µg/mL and 1250 µg/mL, respectively) and lowest bacterial densities compared to methods B or C (P<.001). CONCLUSION In healthy volunteers, cleansing with 2% CHG-impregnated cloths yielded higher residual CHG concentrations and lower bacterial densities than cleansing with 4% CHG liquid applied with either of 2 different cloth types and followed by rinsing. The relevance of these differences to clinical outcomes remains to be determined. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:405-411.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29493475     DOI: 10.1017/ice.2017.312

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol        ISSN: 0899-823X            Impact factor:   3.254


  8 in total

1.  What's new in the prevention of healthcare-associated infections using chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated washcloths.

Authors:  Sandrine Dray; Jean-Marie Forel; Laurent Papazian
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2018-11-26       Impact factor: 17.440

2.  2CS-CHXT Operon Signature of Chlorhexidine Tolerance among Enterococcus faecium Isolates.

Authors:  Bárbara Duarte; Ana P Pereira; Ana R Freitas; Teresa M Coque; Anette M Hammerum; Henrik Hasman; Patrícia Antunes; Luísa Peixe; Carla Novais
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2019-11-14       Impact factor: 4.792

3.  Chlorhexidine versus routine bathing to prevent multidrug-resistant organisms and all-cause bloodstream infections in general medical and surgical units (ABATE Infection trial): a cluster-randomised trial.

Authors:  Susan S Huang; Edward Septimus; Ken Kleinman; Julia Moody; Jason Hickok; Lauren Heim; Adrijana Gombosev; Taliser R Avery; Katherine Haffenreffer; Lauren Shimelman; Mary K Hayden; Robert A Weinstein; Caren Spencer-Smith; Rebecca E Kaganov; Michael V Murphy; Tyler Forehand; Julie Lankiewicz; Micaela H Coady; Lena Portillo; Jalpa Sarup-Patel; John A Jernigan; Jonathan B Perlin; Richard Platt
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2019-03-05       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  Estimated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Decolonization in Intensive Care Units Associated With Single-Application Chlorhexidine Gluconate or Mupirocin.

Authors:  Eric T Lofgren; Matthew Mietchen; Kristen V Dicks; Rebekah Moehring; Deverick Anderson
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-03-01

5.  Chlorhexidine gluconate bathing of adult patients in intensive care units in São Paulo, Brazil: Impact on the incidence of healthcare-associated infection.

Authors:  Mariana Andrade Oliveira Reis; Maria Claudia Stockler de Almeida; Daniela Escudero; Eduardo A Medeiros
Journal:  Braz J Infect Dis       Date:  2022-01-12       Impact factor: 3.257

6.  Impact of preoperative chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) application methods on preoperative CHG skin concentration.

Authors:  Bobby G Warren; Alicia Nelson; David K Warren; Meghan A Baker; Candace Miller; Tracey Habrock; Jahnavi Bongu; Abinav Gowda; Jacob Johnson; Deverick J Anderson
Journal:  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol       Date:  2020-09-30       Impact factor: 3.254

7.  Clinical and Personal Lubricants Impact the Growth of Vaginal Lactobacillus Species and Colonization of Vaginal Epithelial Cells: An in Vitro Study.

Authors:  Paweł Łaniewski; Kimberley A Owen; Michael Khnanisho; Rebecca M Brotman; Melissa M Herbst-Kralovetz
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 2.830

Review 8.  Assessing the Potential for Unintended Microbial Consequences of Routine Chlorhexidine Bathing for Prevention of Healthcare-associated Infections.

Authors:  Ahmed Babiker; Joseph D Lutgring; Scott Fridkin; Mary K Hayden
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 9.079

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.