Pre-procedural Topical Antisepsis in the Neonate: A Systematic Review Evaluating Risk Factors for Skin Injury.
antiseptics
burns
central‐line associated bloodstream infections
chlorhexidine
infant
newborn
preterm
Journal
Pediatric dermatology
ISSN: 1525-1470
Titre abrégé: Pediatr Dermatol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8406799
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 Oct 2024
04 Oct 2024
Historique:
revised:
02
09
2024
received:
14
06
2024
accepted:
14
09
2024
medline:
5
10
2024
pubmed:
5
10
2024
entrez:
5
10
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Pre-procedural antisepsis is a critical component of hospital-acquired infection prevention in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). However, broadly utilized topical antiseptic agents pose an elevated risk of disruption to neonatal skin integrity, and evidence-based guidelines are lacking. This systematic review of the literature sought to assess and characterize the predisposing risk factors for and types of neonatal skin injury from topical antiseptic agents. A systematic search of Medline Ovid, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library was conducted, including academic literature providing data on neonatal skin injuries related to topical antisepsis in the NICU. A total of 19 articles (99 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Of the available data, most reported skin injuries were described in extremely preterm (98.1%) and very low birth weight (98.4%) infants. The majority of reported adverse cutaneous events were attributed to chlorhexidine preparations (74.8%), followed by octenidine (18.2%), povidone-iodine (6.1%), and isopropyl alcohol (2.0%). Erythema (40.1%), skin breakdown (23.4%), and chemical burns (17.5%) were the skin reactions reported most frequently, followed by skin irritation (8.3%), and skin necrosis (2.8%). Our findings indicate that both extremely preterm and very low birth weight infants are particularly susceptible to skin toxicities from pre-procedural antiseptic preparations. These data underscore the need for future research to support the development of guidelines which minimize iatrogenic cutaneous injuries in the neonatal population, specifically for the care of infants under 2 months of age, for whom current recommendations are lacking due to a paucity of data.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Pre-procedural antisepsis is a critical component of hospital-acquired infection prevention in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). However, broadly utilized topical antiseptic agents pose an elevated risk of disruption to neonatal skin integrity, and evidence-based guidelines are lacking. This systematic review of the literature sought to assess and characterize the predisposing risk factors for and types of neonatal skin injury from topical antiseptic agents.
METHODS
METHODS
A systematic search of Medline Ovid, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library was conducted, including academic literature providing data on neonatal skin injuries related to topical antisepsis in the NICU.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 19 articles (99 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Of the available data, most reported skin injuries were described in extremely preterm (98.1%) and very low birth weight (98.4%) infants. The majority of reported adverse cutaneous events were attributed to chlorhexidine preparations (74.8%), followed by octenidine (18.2%), povidone-iodine (6.1%), and isopropyl alcohol (2.0%). Erythema (40.1%), skin breakdown (23.4%), and chemical burns (17.5%) were the skin reactions reported most frequently, followed by skin irritation (8.3%), and skin necrosis (2.8%).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings indicate that both extremely preterm and very low birth weight infants are particularly susceptible to skin toxicities from pre-procedural antiseptic preparations. These data underscore the need for future research to support the development of guidelines which minimize iatrogenic cutaneous injuries in the neonatal population, specifically for the care of infants under 2 months of age, for whom current recommendations are lacking due to a paucity of data.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
A. L. Shane, P. J. Sánchez, and B. J. Stoll, “Neonatal Sepsis,” Lancet 390, no. 10104 (2017): 1770–1780, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140‐6736(17)31002‐4.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “NICU: CLABSI | Infection Control | CDC. NICU: CLABSI Guidelines,” accessed January 8, 2024, https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/nicu‐clabsi/index.html.
L. Ludriksone, N. Garcia Bartels, V. Kanti, U. Blume‐Peytavi, and J. Kottner, “Skin Barrier Function in Infancy: A Systematic Review,” Archives of Dermatological Research 306, no. 7 (2014): 591–599, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403‐014‐1458‐6.
A. Rahma and M. E. Lane, “Skin Barrier Function in Infants: Update and Outlook,” Pharmaceutics 14, no. 2 (2022): 433, https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics14020433.
M. Visscher and V. Narendran, “The Ontogeny of Skin,” Advances in Wound Care 3, no. 4 (2014): 291–303, https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2013.0467.
J. Johnson, R. Bracken, P. D. Tamma, S. W. Aucott, C. Bearer, and A. M. Milstone, “Trends in Chlorhexidine Use in US Neonatal Intensive Care Units: Results From a Follow‐Up National Survey,” Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 37, no. 9 (2016): 1116–1118, https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2016.125.
K. Beekman and D. Steward, “Chlorhexidine Gluconate Utilization for Infection Prevention in the NICU: A Survey of Current Practice,” Advances in Neonatal Care 20, no. 1 (2020): 38–47, https://doi.org/10.1097/ANC.0000000000000658.
C. D. Biermann, A. Kribs, B. Roth, and I. Tantcheva‐Poor, “Use and Cutaneous Side Effects of Skin Antiseptics in Extremely Low Birth Weight Infants – A Retrospective Survey of the German NICUs,” Klinische Pädiatrie 228, no. 4 (2016): 208–212, https://doi.org/10.1055/s‐0042‐104122.
S. Sathiyamurthy, J. Banerjee, and S. V. Godambe, “Antiseptic Use in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit – A Dilemma in Clinical Practice: An Evidence Based Review,” World Journal of Clinical Pediatrics 5, no. 2 (2016): 159–171, https://doi.org/10.5409/wjcp.v5.i2.159.
C. Smith and D. C. Miller, “Antiseptic Agents,” Pain Medicine 21, no. 3 (2020): 643–644, https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnz342.
J. S. Garland, C. P. Alex, M. R. Uhing, I. E. Peterside, A. Rentz, and M. C. Harris, “Pilot Trial to Compare Tolerance of Chlorhexidine Gluconate to Povidone‐Iodine Antisepsis for Central Venous Catheter Placement in Neonates,” Journal of Perinatology 29, no. 12 (2009): 808–813, https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2009.161.
J. Kutsch and D. Ottinger, “Neonatal Skin and Chlorhexidine: A Burning Experience,” Neonatal Network 33, no. 1 (2014): 19–23, https://doi.org/10.1891/0730‐0832.33.1.19.
I. Neri, G. M. Ravaioli, G. Faldella, M. G. Capretti, S. Arcuri, and A. Patrizi, “Chlorhexidine‐Induced Chemical Burns in Very Low Birth Weight Infants,” Journal of Pediatrics 191 (2017): 262–265.e2, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.08.002.
V. Vanzi and R. Pitaro, “Skin Injuries and Chlorhexidine Gluconate‐Based Antisepsis in Early Premature Infants: A Case Report and Review of the Literature,” Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing 32, no. 4 (2018): 341–350, https://doi.org/10.1097/JPN.0000000000000334.
E. A. Kieran, A. O'Sullivan, J. Miletin, A. R. Twomey, S. J. Knowles, and C. P. F. O'Donnell, “2% Chlorhexidine‐70% Isopropyl Alcohol Versus 10% Povidone‐Iodine for Insertion Site Cleaning Before Central Line Insertion in Preterm Infants: A Randomised Trial,” Archives of Disease in Childhood‐Fetal and Neonatal Edition 103, no. 2 (2018): F101–F106, https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild‐2016‐312193.
J. Aitken and F. L. R. Williams, “A Systematic Review of Thyroid Dysfunction in Preterm Neonates Exposed to Topical Iodine,” Archives of Disease in Childhood‐Fetal and Neonatal Edition 99, no. 1 (2014): F21–F28, https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild‐2013‐303799.
D. Hitaka, S. Fujiyama, Y. Nishihama, et al., “Assessment of Alcohol Exposure From Alcohol‐Based Disinfectants Among Premature Infants in Neonatal Incubators in Japan,” JAMA Network Open 6, no. 2 (2023): e230691, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.0691.
A. K. Chapman, S. W. Aucott, and A. M. Milstone, “Safety of Chlorhexidine Gluconate Used for Skin Antisepsis in the Preterm Infant,” Journal of Perinatology 32, no. 1 (2012): 4–9, https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2011.148.
M. J. Page, J. E. McKenzie, P. M. Bossuyt, et al., “The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews,” Systematic Reviews 10, no. 1 (2021): 89, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643‐021‐01626‐4.
M. Ouzzani, H. Hammady, Z. Fedorowicz, and A. Elmagarmid, “Rayyan – A Web and Mobile App for Systematic Reviews,” Systematic Reviews 5, no. 1 (2016): 210, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643‐016‐0384‐4.
C. Andersen, J. Hart, P. Vemgal, and C. Harrison, “Prospective Evaluation of a Multi‐Factorial Prevention Strategy on the Impact of Nosocomial Infection in Very‐Low‐Birthweight Infants,” Journal of Hospital Infection 61, no. 2 (2005): 162–167, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2005.02.002.
X. Bringué Espuny, X. Soria, E. Solé, et al., “Chlorhexidine‐Methanol Burns in Two Extreme Preterm Newborns,” Pediatric Dermatology 27, no. 6 (2010): 676–678, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525‐1470.2010.01178.x.
C. Bührer, S. Bahr, J. Siebert, R. Wettstein, C. Geffers, and M. Obladen, “Use of 2% 2‐Phenoxyethanol and 0.1% Octenidine as Antiseptic in Premature Newborn Infants of 23‐26 Weeks Gestation,” Journal of Hospital Infection 51, no. 4 (2002): 305–307, https://doi.org/10.1053/jhin.2002.1249.
M. Capretti, M. Spinelli, E. Tridapalli, et al., “Safety of Aqueous Chlorhexidine Gluconate for Skin Antisepsis in VLBW Infants,” Early Human Development 87, no. Suppl (2011): S89, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2010.12.022.
P. Clarke, A. Soe, A. Nichols, et al., “2% Chlorhexidine Gluconate Aqueous Versus 2% Chlorhexidine Gluconate in 70% Isopropyl Alcohol for Skin Disinfection Prior to Percutaneous Central Venous Catheterisation: The ARCTIC Randomised Controlled Feasibility Trial,” Archives of Disease in Childhood‐Fetal and Neonatal Edition 109, no. 2 (2024): 202–210, https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild‐2023‐325871.
L. M. A. Janssen, A. Tostmann, J. Hopman, and K. D. Liem, “0.2% Chlorhexidine Acetate as Skin Disinfectant Prevents Skin Lesions in Extremely Preterm Infants: A Preliminary Report,” Archives of Disease in Childhood‐Fetal and Neonatal Edition 103, no. 2 (2017): F97–F100, https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild‐2017‐312694.
H. P. Lashkari, P. Chow, and S. Godambe, “Aqueous 2% Chlorhexidine‐Induced Chemical Burns in an Extremely Premature Infant,” Archives of Disease in Childhood‐Fetal and Neonatal Edition 97, no. 1 (2012): F64, https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2011.215145.
K. Mannan, P. Chow, T. Lissauer, and S. Godambe, “Mistaken Identity of Skin Cleansing Solution Leading to Extensive Chemical Burns in an Extremely Preterm Infant,” Acta Paediatrica 96, no. 10 (2007): 1536–1537, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1651‐2227.2007.00376.x.
A. Priyadarshi and J. Marceu, “Aqueous 0.5% Chlorhexidine Induced Chemical Spillage Burns: Use of a Novel Flexible Silicone Dressing Gel,” Pediatrics and Neonatal Nursing: Open Access 1, no. 2 (2015), https://doi.org/10.16966/2470‐0983.107.
P. R. Reynolds, S. Banerjee, and J. H. Meek, “Alcohol Burns in Extremely Low Birthweight Infants: Still Occurring,” Archives of Disease in Childhood‐Fetal and Neonatal Edition 90, no. 1 (2005): F10, https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2004.054338.
L. Smotrich, “A Comparison of Chlorhexidine Gluconate Versus Povidone‐Iodine for Umbilical Catheter Placement in the Extremely Low Birth‐Weight Infant,” National Association of Neonatal Nurses 17, no. 3 (2017): E19–E20, https://doi.org/10.1097/ANC.0000000000000407.
A. M. Watkins and E. J. Keogh, “Alcohol Burns in the Neonate,” Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health 28, no. 4 (1992): 306–308, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440‐1754.1992.tb02673.x.
L. S. Zhen and K. N. Poh, “Cutaneous Chemical Burns Associated With Chlorhexidine‐Alcohol Solution in an Extremely Preterm Infant,” Journal of Neonatology 34, no. 1–2 (2020): 103–104, https://doi.org/10.1177/0973217920928641.
C. H. Lund, J. W. Osborne, J. Kuller, A. T. Lane, J. W. Lott, and D. A. Raines, “Neonatal Skin Care: Clinical Outcomes of the AWHONN/NANN Evidence‐Based Clinical Practice Guideline,” Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing 30, no. 1 (2001): 41–51, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1552‐6909.2001.tb01520.x.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, accessed February 22, 2024, https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/appletter/2012/020832Origs030,021555Orig1s017ltr.pdf.
A. Sharma, S. Kulkarni, A. Thukral, et al., “Aqueous Chlorhexidine 1% Versus 2% for Neonatal Skin Antisepsis: A Randomised Non‐Inferiority Trial,” Archives of Disease in Childhood‐Fetal and Neonatal Edition 106, no. 6 (2021): 643–648, https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild‐2020‐321174.
A. Kusari, A. M. Han, C. A. Virgen, et al., “Evidence‐Based Skin Care in Preterm Infants,” Pediatric Dermatology 36, no. 1 (2019): 16–23, https://doi.org/10.1111/pde.13725.
3M, “3M™ SoluPrep™ Swab, 102.02, Small, 0. 5% CHG, 70% IPA,” accessed August 5, 2024, https://www.3m.com/3M/en_LB/p/d/v000230229/.
J. M. Boyce, “Best Products for Skin Antisepsis,” American Journal of Infection Control 51, no. 11 (2023): A58–A63, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2023.02.002.
S. G. Danby, C. Bewdwell, and M. J. Cork, “Neonatal Skin Care and Toxicology,” in Neonatal and Infant Dermatology, 3rd ed. (Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier, 2015), 46–56.
P. D. Tamma, S. W. Aucott, and A. M. Milstone, “Chlorhexidine Use in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: Results From a National Survey,” Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 31, no. 8 (2010): 846–849, https://doi.org/10.1086/655017.
H. Kucuker, S. C. Cakir, N. Koksal, et al., “A Comparison of Chlorhexidine and Povidone‐Iodine Solutions in Neonatal Intensive Care Units,” Pediatrics International 65, no. 1 (2023): e15552, https://doi.org/10.1111/ped.15552.
E. Y. Huang, C. Chen, F. Abdullah, et al., “Strategies for the Prevention of Central Venous Catheter Infections: An American Pediatric Surgical Association Outcomes and Clinical Trials Committee Systematic Review,” Journal of Pediatric Surgery 46, no. 10 (2011): 2000–2011, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2011.06.017.
H. P. Loveday, J. A. Wilson, R. J. Pratt, et al., “epic3: National Evidence‐Based Guidelines for Preventing Healthcare‐Associated Infections in NHS Hospitals in England,” Journal of Hospital Infection 86 (2014): S1–S70, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195‐6701(13)60012‐2.
M. R. Lin, P. J. Chang, P. C. Hsu, C. S. Lin, C. H. Chiu, and C. J. Chen, “Comparison of Efficacy of 2% Chlorhexidine Gluconate‐Alcohol and 10% Povidone‐Iodine‐Alcohol Against Catheter‐Related Bloodstream Infections and Bacterial Colonization at Central Venous Catheter Insertion Sites: A Prospective, Single‐Center, Open‐Label, Crossover Study,” Journal of Clinical Medicine 11, no. 8 (2022): 2242, https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11082242.
P. Nuntnarumit and N. Sangsuksawang, “A Randomized Controlled Trial of 1% Aqueous Chlorhexidine Gluconate Compared With 10% Povidone‐Iodine for Topical Antiseptic in Neonates Effects on Blood Culture Contamination Rates,” Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 34, no. 4 (2013): 430–432, https://doi.org/10.1086/669863.
P. M. Vivier, W. J. Lewander, H. F. Martin, and J. G. Linakis, “Isopropyl Alcohol Intoxication in a Neonate Through Chronic Dermal Exposure: A Complication of a Culturally‐Based Umbilical Care Practice,” Pediatric Emergency Care 10, no. 2 (1994): 91–93, https://doi.org/10.1097/00006565‐199404000‐00008.
H. Felgate, C. Quinn, B. Richardson, et al., “Impact of Daily Octenidine Skin Washing Versus Nonwashing on Antiseptic Tolerance of Coagulase‐Negative Staphylococci in Two Neonatal Intensive Care Units With Different Skin Cleansing Practices,” Infection Prevention in Practice 6, no. 1 (2024): 100344, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infpip.2024.100344.