Cholorhexidine, octenidine or povidone iodine for catheter related infections: A randomized controlled trial

Ayten Bilir, Birgül Yelken, Ayse Erkan, Ayten Bilir, Birgül Yelken, Ayse Erkan

Abstract

Background: Protection of the catheter site by antimicrobial agents is one of the most important factors in the prevention of infection. Povidone iodine and chlorhexidine gluconate are the most common used agents for dressing. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of povidone iodine, chlorhexidine gluconate and octenidine hydrochloride in preventing catheter related infections.

Materials and methods: Patients were randomized to receive; 4% chlorhexidine gluconate, 10% povidone iodine or octenidine hydrochlorodine for cutaneous antisepsis. Cultures were taken at the site surrounding catheter insertion and at the catheter hub after removal to help identify the source of microorganisms.

Results: Catheter related sepsis was 10.5% in the povidone iodine and octenidine hydrochlorodine groups. Catheter related colonization was 26.3% in povidone iodine group and 21.5% in octenidine hydrochlorodine group.

Conclusion: 4% chlorhexidine or octenidine hydrochlorodine for cutaneous disinfection before insertion of an intravascular device and for post-insertion site care can reduce the catheter related colonization.

Keywords: Catheter infection; chlorhexidine; cutaneous; octenidine hydrochlorodine; povidone iodine.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

References

    1. O’Grady NP. Applying the science to the prevention of catheter-related infections. J Crit Care. 2002;17:114–21.
    1. Dixon JM, Carver RL. Daily chlorohexidine gluconate bathing with impregnated cloths results in statistically significant reduction in central line-associated bloodstream infections. Am J Infect Control. 2010;38:817–21.
    1. Sanders WM. Infectious complications of intravascular access devices. In: Hall JB, Schmidt GA, Wood LD, editors. Critical Care. United States of America: McGraw-Hill; 1996. pp. 483–8.
    1. Bradley SF, Kaufmann CA. Infections associated with vascular catheters. In: Rippe JM, Irwin RS, Fink MP, Cerra FB, editors. Intensive Care Medicine. 3rd ed. United States of America: Little, Brown and Company; 1996. pp. 1141–52.
    1. Harke HP. Octenidine dihydrochloride, properties of a new antimicrobial agent. Zentralbl Hyg Umweltmed. 1989;188:188–93.
    1. Maki DG, Ringer M, Alvarado CJ. Prospective randomised trial of povidone-iodine, alcohol, and chlorhexidine for prevention of infection associated with central venous and arterial catheters. Lancet. 1991;338:339–43.
    1. Chaiyakunapruk N, Veenstra DL, Lipsky BA, Sullivan SD, Saint S. Vascular catheter site care: The clinical and economic benefits of chlorhexidine gluconate compared with povidone iodine. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;37:764–71.
    1. Krau SD. Review: Chlorhexidine gluconate is more effective than povidone-iodine for preventing vascular catheter related bloodstream infection. Evid Based Nurs. 2003;6:18.
    1. Chaiyakunapruk N, Veenstra DL, Lipsky BA, Saint S. Chlorhexidine compared with povidone-iodine solution for vascular catheter-site care: A meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:792–801.
    1. Mimoz O, Karim A, Mercat A, Cosseron M, Falissard B, Parker F, et al. Chlorhexidine compared with povidone-iodine as skin preparation before blood culture. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 1999;131:834–7.
    1. Carson SM. Chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine for central venous catheter site care in children. J Pediatr Nurs. 2004;19:74–80.
    1. Mimoz O, Pieroni L, Lawrence C, Edouard A, Costa Y, Samii K, et al. Prospective, randomized trial of two antiseptic solutions for prevention of central venous or arterial catheter colonization and infection in intensive care unit patients. Crit Care Med. 1996;24:1818–23.
    1. Rubin C, Louthan RB, Wessels E, McGowan MB, Downer S, Maiden J. Chlorhexidine gluconate: To bathe or not to bathe? Crit Care Nurs Q. 2013;36:233–6.
    1. Kinirons B, Mimoz O, Lafendi L, Naas T, Meunier J, Nordmann P. Chlorhexidine versus povidone iodine in preventing colonization of continuous epidural catheters in children: A randomized, controlled trial. Anesthesiology. 2001;94:239–44.
    1. Kasuda H, Fukuda H, Togashi H, Hotta K, Hirai Y, Hayashi M. Skin disinfection before epidural catheterization: Comparative study of povidone-iodine versus chlorhexidine ethanol. Dermatology. 2002;204(Suppl 1):42–6.
    1. Garland JS, Alex CP, Mueller CD, Otten D, Shivpuri C, Harris MC, et al. A randomized trial comparing povidone-iodine to a chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated dressing for prevention of central venous catheter infections in neonates. Pediatrics. 2001;107:1431–6.
    1. Humar A, Ostromecki A, Direnfeld J, Marshall JC, Lazar N, Houston PC, et al. Prospective randomized trial of 10% povidone-iodine versus 0.5% tincture of chlorhexidine as cutaneous antisepsis for prevention of central venous catheter infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;31:1001–7.
    1. Sherertz RJ, Raad II, Belani A, Koo LC, Rand KH, Pickett DL, et al. Three-year experience with sonicated vascular catheter cultures in a clinical microbiology laboratory. J Clin Microbiol. 1990;28:76–82.
    1. Liñares J, Sitges-Serra A, Garau J, Pérez JL, Martín R. Pathogenesis of catheter sepsis: A prospective study with quantitative and semiquantitative cultures of catheter hub and segments. J Clin Microbiol. 1985;21:357–60.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться