Cargando…

Chlorhexidine-impregnated sponge versus chlorhexidine gel dressing for short-term intravascular catheters: which one is better?

BACKGROUND: Chlorhexidine-gluconate (CHG) impregnated dressings may prevent catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI). Chlorhexidine-impregnated sponge dressings (sponge-dress) and gel dressings (gel-dress) have never been directly compared. We used the data collected for two randomized-contro...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Buetti, Niccolò, Ruckly, Stéphane, Schwebel, Carole, Mimoz, Olivier, Souweine, Bertrand, Lucet, Jean-Christophe, Timsit, Jean-François
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7376730/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32703235
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-03174-0
_version_ 1783562094275198976
author Buetti, Niccolò
Ruckly, Stéphane
Schwebel, Carole
Mimoz, Olivier
Souweine, Bertrand
Lucet, Jean-Christophe
Timsit, Jean-François
author_facet Buetti, Niccolò
Ruckly, Stéphane
Schwebel, Carole
Mimoz, Olivier
Souweine, Bertrand
Lucet, Jean-Christophe
Timsit, Jean-François
author_sort Buetti, Niccolò
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Chlorhexidine-gluconate (CHG) impregnated dressings may prevent catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI). Chlorhexidine-impregnated sponge dressings (sponge-dress) and gel dressings (gel-dress) have never been directly compared. We used the data collected for two randomized-controlled trials to perform a comparison between sponge-dress and gel-dress. METHODS: Adult critically ill patients who required short-term central venous or arterial catheter insertion were recruited. Our main analysis included only patients with CHG-impregnated dressings. The effect of gel-dress (versus sponge-dress) on major catheter-related infections (MCRI) and CRBSI was estimated using multivariate marginal Cox models. The comparative risks of dressing disruption and contact dermatitis were evaluated using logistic mix models for clustered data. An explanatory analysis compared gel-dress with standard dressings using either CHG skin disinfection or povidone iodine skin disinfection. RESULTS: A total of 3483 patients and 7941 catheters were observed in 16 intensive care units. Sponge-dress and gel-dress were utilized for 1953 and 2108 catheters, respectively. After adjustment for confounders, gel-dress showed similar risk for MCRI compared to sponge-dress (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.28–2.31, p = 0.68) and CRBSI (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.34–3.70, p = 0.85), less dressing disruptions (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60–0.86, p < 0.001), and more contact dermatitis (OR 3.60, 95% CI 2.51–5.15, p < 0.01). However, gel-dress increased the risk of contact dermatitis only if CHG was used for skin antisepsis (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.38–2.71, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We described a similar infection risk for gel-dress and sponge-dress. Gel-dress showed fewer dressing disruptions. Concomitant use of CHG for skin disinfection and CHG-impregnated dressing may significantly increase contact dermatitis. TRIALS REGISTRATION: These studies were registered within ClinicalTrials.gov (numbers NCT01189682 and NCT00417235).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7376730
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73767302020-07-23 Chlorhexidine-impregnated sponge versus chlorhexidine gel dressing for short-term intravascular catheters: which one is better? Buetti, Niccolò Ruckly, Stéphane Schwebel, Carole Mimoz, Olivier Souweine, Bertrand Lucet, Jean-Christophe Timsit, Jean-François Crit Care Research BACKGROUND: Chlorhexidine-gluconate (CHG) impregnated dressings may prevent catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI). Chlorhexidine-impregnated sponge dressings (sponge-dress) and gel dressings (gel-dress) have never been directly compared. We used the data collected for two randomized-controlled trials to perform a comparison between sponge-dress and gel-dress. METHODS: Adult critically ill patients who required short-term central venous or arterial catheter insertion were recruited. Our main analysis included only patients with CHG-impregnated dressings. The effect of gel-dress (versus sponge-dress) on major catheter-related infections (MCRI) and CRBSI was estimated using multivariate marginal Cox models. The comparative risks of dressing disruption and contact dermatitis were evaluated using logistic mix models for clustered data. An explanatory analysis compared gel-dress with standard dressings using either CHG skin disinfection or povidone iodine skin disinfection. RESULTS: A total of 3483 patients and 7941 catheters were observed in 16 intensive care units. Sponge-dress and gel-dress were utilized for 1953 and 2108 catheters, respectively. After adjustment for confounders, gel-dress showed similar risk for MCRI compared to sponge-dress (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.28–2.31, p = 0.68) and CRBSI (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.34–3.70, p = 0.85), less dressing disruptions (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60–0.86, p < 0.001), and more contact dermatitis (OR 3.60, 95% CI 2.51–5.15, p < 0.01). However, gel-dress increased the risk of contact dermatitis only if CHG was used for skin antisepsis (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.38–2.71, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We described a similar infection risk for gel-dress and sponge-dress. Gel-dress showed fewer dressing disruptions. Concomitant use of CHG for skin disinfection and CHG-impregnated dressing may significantly increase contact dermatitis. TRIALS REGISTRATION: These studies were registered within ClinicalTrials.gov (numbers NCT01189682 and NCT00417235). BioMed Central 2020-07-23 /pmc/articles/PMC7376730/ /pubmed/32703235 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-03174-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Buetti, Niccolò
Ruckly, Stéphane
Schwebel, Carole
Mimoz, Olivier
Souweine, Bertrand
Lucet, Jean-Christophe
Timsit, Jean-François
Chlorhexidine-impregnated sponge versus chlorhexidine gel dressing for short-term intravascular catheters: which one is better?
title Chlorhexidine-impregnated sponge versus chlorhexidine gel dressing for short-term intravascular catheters: which one is better?
title_full Chlorhexidine-impregnated sponge versus chlorhexidine gel dressing for short-term intravascular catheters: which one is better?
title_fullStr Chlorhexidine-impregnated sponge versus chlorhexidine gel dressing for short-term intravascular catheters: which one is better?
title_full_unstemmed Chlorhexidine-impregnated sponge versus chlorhexidine gel dressing for short-term intravascular catheters: which one is better?
title_short Chlorhexidine-impregnated sponge versus chlorhexidine gel dressing for short-term intravascular catheters: which one is better?
title_sort chlorhexidine-impregnated sponge versus chlorhexidine gel dressing for short-term intravascular catheters: which one is better?
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7376730/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32703235
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-03174-0
work_keys_str_mv AT buettiniccolo chlorhexidineimpregnatedspongeversuschlorhexidinegeldressingforshorttermintravascularcatheterswhichoneisbetter
AT rucklystephane chlorhexidineimpregnatedspongeversuschlorhexidinegeldressingforshorttermintravascularcatheterswhichoneisbetter
AT schwebelcarole chlorhexidineimpregnatedspongeversuschlorhexidinegeldressingforshorttermintravascularcatheterswhichoneisbetter
AT mimozolivier chlorhexidineimpregnatedspongeversuschlorhexidinegeldressingforshorttermintravascularcatheterswhichoneisbetter
AT souweinebertrand chlorhexidineimpregnatedspongeversuschlorhexidinegeldressingforshorttermintravascularcatheterswhichoneisbetter
AT lucetjeanchristophe chlorhexidineimpregnatedspongeversuschlorhexidinegeldressingforshorttermintravascularcatheterswhichoneisbetter
AT timsitjeanfrancois chlorhexidineimpregnatedspongeversuschlorhexidinegeldressingforshorttermintravascularcatheterswhichoneisbetter