Sustained reduction of catheter-associated bloodstream infections with enhancement of catheter bundle by chlorhexidine dressings over 11 years.
Aged
Anti-Infective Agents, Local
/ pharmacology
Bandages
/ standards
Catheter-Related Infections
/ drug therapy
Central Venous Catheters
/ adverse effects
Chlorhexidine
/ pharmacology
Female
Humans
Intensive Care Units
/ organization & administration
Length of Stay
/ statistics & numerical data
Male
Middle Aged
Patient Care Bundles
/ methods
Prospective Studies
Sepsis
/ drug therapy
Simplified Acute Physiology Score
Switzerland
/ epidemiology
Bacteremia
Catheter bundle
Catheter-related infections
Central line-associated bloodstream infections
Chlorhexidine gel
Chlorhexidine sponge
Chlorhexidine-dressing
Nosocomial infection
Journal
Intensive care medicine
ISSN: 1432-1238
Titre abrégé: Intensive Care Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7704851
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2019
06 2019
Historique:
received:
12
11
2018
accepted:
06
04
2019
pubmed:
19
4
2019
medline:
25
2
2020
entrez:
19
4
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Prospective randomized controlled studies have demonstrated that addition of chlorhexidine (CHG) dressings reduces the rate of catheter (central venous and arterial)-associated bloodstream infections (CABSIs). However, studies confirming their impact in a real-world setting are lacking. We conducted a real-world data study evaluating the impact of incrementally introducing chlorhexidine dressings (sponge or gel) in addition to an ongoing catheter bundle on the rates of CABSI, expressed as incidence density rates per 1000 catheter-days measured as part of a surveillance program. Poisson regression models were used to compare infection rates over time. Both dressings were used simultaneously during one of the five study periods. From 2006 to 2014, 18,286 patients were admitted (91,292 ICU-days and 155,242 catheter-days). We recorded 111 CABSIs. We observed a progressive but significant decrease of CABSI rates from 1.48 (95% CI 1.09-2.01) without CHG dressings to 0.69 (95% CI 0.43-1.09) and 0.23 (95% CI 0.11-0.48) episodes per 1000 catheter-days when CHG sponge and CHG gel dressings were used (p = 0.0007; p < 0.001). A non-significant lower rate of infections occurred with CHG gel compared with CHG sponge dressings. An identical low rate of allergic skin reactions (0.3/1000 device-days) was observed with both types of CHX dressings. Post-study data until 2018 confirmed a sustained decrease of infection rates over 11 years. The addition of chlorhexidine dressings to all CVC and arterial lines to an ongoing catheter bundle was associated with a sustained 11-year reduction of all catheter-associated bloodstream infections. This large real-world data study further supports the current recommendations for the systematic use of CHG dressings on all catheters of ICU patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Prospective randomized controlled studies have demonstrated that addition of chlorhexidine (CHG) dressings reduces the rate of catheter (central venous and arterial)-associated bloodstream infections (CABSIs). However, studies confirming their impact in a real-world setting are lacking.
METHODS
We conducted a real-world data study evaluating the impact of incrementally introducing chlorhexidine dressings (sponge or gel) in addition to an ongoing catheter bundle on the rates of CABSI, expressed as incidence density rates per 1000 catheter-days measured as part of a surveillance program. Poisson regression models were used to compare infection rates over time. Both dressings were used simultaneously during one of the five study periods.
RESULTS
From 2006 to 2014, 18,286 patients were admitted (91,292 ICU-days and 155,242 catheter-days). We recorded 111 CABSIs. We observed a progressive but significant decrease of CABSI rates from 1.48 (95% CI 1.09-2.01) without CHG dressings to 0.69 (95% CI 0.43-1.09) and 0.23 (95% CI 0.11-0.48) episodes per 1000 catheter-days when CHG sponge and CHG gel dressings were used (p = 0.0007; p < 0.001). A non-significant lower rate of infections occurred with CHG gel compared with CHG sponge dressings. An identical low rate of allergic skin reactions (0.3/1000 device-days) was observed with both types of CHX dressings. Post-study data until 2018 confirmed a sustained decrease of infection rates over 11 years.
CONCLUSIONS
The addition of chlorhexidine dressings to all CVC and arterial lines to an ongoing catheter bundle was associated with a sustained 11-year reduction of all catheter-associated bloodstream infections. This large real-world data study further supports the current recommendations for the systematic use of CHG dressings on all catheters of ICU patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30997542
doi: 10.1007/s00134-019-05617-x
pii: 10.1007/s00134-019-05617-x
pmc: PMC6534662
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anti-Infective Agents, Local
0
Chlorhexidine
R4KO0DY52L
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
823-833Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
N Engl J Med. 2006 Dec 28;355(26):2725-32
pubmed: 17192537
Scand J Infect Dis. 2013 Oct;45(10):773-9
pubmed: 23848411
J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2018 Oct;51(5):644-651
pubmed: 28888825
Am J Med Qual. 2016 May;31(3):197-202
pubmed: 25609646
JAMA. 2009 Mar 25;301(12):1231-41
pubmed: 19318651
MMWR Recomm Rep. 2002 Aug 9;51(RR-10):1-29
pubmed: 12233868
Infection. 2015 Feb;43(1):29-36
pubmed: 25331552
Intensive Care Med. 2018 Jan;44(1):48-60
pubmed: 29248964
PLoS One. 2018 May 25;13(5):e0197747
pubmed: 29799871
PLoS One. 2011 Jan 18;6(1):e15452
pubmed: 21267440
Intensive Care Med. 2012 Oct;38(10):1662-72
pubmed: 22797354
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016 Apr;14(2):135-49
pubmed: 26458938
Crit Care Med. 2010 Apr;38(4):1030-5
pubmed: 20154601
N Engl J Med. 2012 Oct 11;367(15):1428-37
pubmed: 23050526
Am J Infect Control. 2016 Sep 1;44(9):1058-60
pubmed: 27156199
Crit Care Med. 2013 Oct;41(10):2364-72
pubmed: 23939352
Lancet. 2000 May 27;355(9218):1864-8
pubmed: 10866442
Crit Care Med. 2014 Jul;42(7):1703-13
pubmed: 24674924
BMJ Qual Saf. 2013 Feb;22(2):110-23
pubmed: 22996571
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012 Dec 15;186(12):1272-8
pubmed: 23043083
JAMA. 1993 Dec 22-29;270(24):2957-63
pubmed: 8254858
Lancet Infect Dis. 2016 Jun;16(6):724-734
pubmed: 26907734
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014 May;35(5):494-501
pubmed: 24709717
Ann Intern Med. 2005 May 17;142(10):875-6
pubmed: 15897546