Login to MyKarger

New to MyKarger? Click here to sign up.



Login with Facebook

Forgot your password?

Authors, Editors, Reviewers

For Manuscript Submission, Check or Review Login please go to Submission Websites List.

Submission Websites List

Institutional Login
(Shibboleth or Open Athens)

For the academic login, please select your country in the dropdown list. You will be redirected to verify your credentials.

Original Paper

Comparison of 0.05% Chlorhexidine and 10% Povidone-Iodine as Cutaneous Disinfectant for Prevention of Central Venous Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infection: A Comparative Study

Ishizuka M. · Nagata H. · Takagi K. · Kubota K.

Author affiliations

Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Dokkyo Medical University, Mibu, Tochigi, Japan

Related Articles for ""

Eur Surg Res 2009;43:286–290

Do you have an account?

Login Information





Contact Information












By signing up for MyKarger you will automatically participate in our year-End raffle.
If you Then Do Not wish To participate, please uncheck the following box.

Yes, I wish To participate In the year-End raffle And Get the chance To win some Of our most interesting books, And other attractive prizes.


I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.



Login Information





Contact Information












By signing up for MyKarger you will automatically participate in our year-End raffle.
If you Then Do Not wish To participate, please uncheck the following box.

Yes, I wish To participate In the year-End raffle And Get the chance To win some Of our most interesting books, And other attractive prizes.


I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.



To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Buy

  • FullText & PDF
  • Unlimited re-access via MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

CHF 38.00 *
EUR 35.00 *
USD 39.00 *

Select

KAB

Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!

If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.


Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.
Learn more

Rent/Cloud

  • Rent for 48h to view
  • Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
  • Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
  • Printing and saving restrictions apply

Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00


Select

Subscribe

  • Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years
  • Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

Subcription rates


Select

* The final prices may differ from the prices shown due to specifics of VAT rules.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: January 08, 2009
Accepted: May 14, 2009
Published online: August 01, 2009
Issue release date: September 2009

Number of Print Pages: 5
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 3

ISSN: 0014-312X (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9921 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/ESR

Abstract

Background: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline recommended the use of 2% chlorhexidine as a percutaneous disinfectant for central venous catheter (CVC) insertion. However, in Japan, 0.05% chlorhexidine is commonly used as well as 10% povidone-iodine, instead of 2% chlorhexidine. Purpose: It was the aim of this study to examine whether the use of 0.05% chlorhexidine is inferior to conventional 10% povidone-iodine as a percutaneous disinfectant for preventing CVC-related bloodstream infection (CVC-RBSI). Methods: Between September 2006 and July 2008, the time interval from insertion to development of CVC-RBSI was compared prospectively between patients prepared with 0.05% chlorhexidine (group 1, n = 286 CVCs) and those prepared with conventional 10% povidone-iodine (group 2, n = 298 CVCs). Results: Two hundred and thirty-nine patients received 584 CVCs for a total of 6,205 catheter-days. CVC-RBSI (3.22 per 1,000 catheter-days) was diagnosed in 20 cases. There were no significant differences in patient background factors between group 1 and 2, except for blood culture positivity (p = 0.0450). However, Kaplan-Meier analysis and the log rank test revealed no significant difference between group 1 and 2 in the time interval from insertion until development of CVC-RBSI. Conclusions: Use of 0.05% chlorhexidine is not inferior to conventional 10% povidone-iodine as a cutaneous disinfectant for the prevention of CVC-RBSI.

© 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel


References

  1. Bacuzzi A, Cecchin A, Del Bosco A, Cantone G, Cuffari S: Recommendations and reports about central venous catheter-related infection. Surg Infect 2006;7:65–67.
    External Resources
  2. Hachem R, Raad I: Prevention and management of long-term catheter related infections in cancer patients. Cancer Invest 2002;20:1105–1113.
  3. Pawar M, Mehta Y, Kapoor P, Sharma J, Gupta A, Trehan N: Central venous catheter-related blood stream infections: incidence, risk factors, outcome, and associated pathogens. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2004;18:304–308.
  4. Safdar N, Kluger DM, Maki DG: A review of risk factors for catheter-related bloodstream infection caused by percutaneously inserted, noncuffed central venous catheters: implications for preventive strategies. Medicine 2002;81:466–479.
  5. Ramritu P, Halton K, Cook D, Whitby M, Graves N: Catheter-related bloodstream infections in intensive care units: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Adv Nurs 2008;62:3–21.
  6. Cicalini S, Palimieri F, Petrosillo N: Clinical review: new technologies for prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Crit Care 2004;8:157–162.
  7. Menyhay SZ, Maki DG: Preventing central venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections: development of an antiseptic barrier cap for needleless connectors. Am J Infect Control 2008;36:S174.e1–S174.e5.
  8. Maki DG, Kluger DM, Crnich CJ: The risk of bloodstream infection in adults with different intravascular devices: a systematic review of 200 published prospective studies. Mayo Clin Proc 2006;81:1159–1171.
  9. Gillies D, O’Riordan E, Carr D, O’Brien I, Frost J, Gunning R: Central venous catheter dressings: a systematic review. J Adv Nurs 2003;44:623–632.
  10. Ruschulte H, Franke M, Gastmeier P, Zenz S, Mahr KH, Buchholz S, et al: Prevention of central venous catheter related infections with chlorhexidine gluconate impregnated wound dressings: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Hematol 2009;88:267–272.
  11. O’Grady NP, Alexander M, Dellinger EP, Gerberding JL, Heard SO, Maki DG, et al: Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. MMWR Recomm Rep 2002;51:1–29.
    External Resources
  12. 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;338:339–343.
  13. Maki DG: Yes, Virginia, aseptic technique is very important: maximal barrier precautions during insertion reduce the risk of central venous catheter-related bacteremia. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994;15:227– 230.
  14. Raad II, Hohn DC, Gilbreath BJ, Suleiman N, Hill LA, Bruso PA, et al: Prevention of central venous catheter-related infections by using maximal sterile barrier precautions during insertion. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994;15:231–238.
  15. 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;31:1001–1007.
  16. Gray P, Sullivan G, Ostryzniuk P, McEwen TA, Rigby M, Roberts DE: Value of postprocedural chest radiographs in the adult intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 1992;20:1513–1518.
  17. David A, Risitano DC, Mazzero G, Sinardi L, Venuti FS, Sinardi AU: Central venous catheters and infections. Minerva Anestesiol 2005;71:561–564.
  18. Horan TC, Andrus M, Dudeck MA: CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of health care-associated infection and criteria for specific types of infections in the acute care setting. Am J Infect Control 2008;36:309–332.
  19. Marschall J, Mermel LA, Classen D, et al: Strategies to prevent central line-associated bloodstream infections in acute care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29:S22–S30.
  20. Linares J, Sitges-Serra A, Garau J, Perez JL, Martin R: Pathogenesis of catheter sepsis: a prospective study with quantitative and semiquantitative cultures of catheter hub and segments. J Clin Microbiol 1985;21:357–360.
  21. Moro ML, Vigano EF, Cozzi Lepri A: Risk factors for central venous catheter-related infections in surgical and intensive care units. The Central Venous Catheter-Related Infections Study Group. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994;15:253–264.
  22. Egebo K, Toft P, Jakobsen CJ: Contamination of central venous catheters. The skin insertion wound is a major source of contamination. J Hosp Infect 1996;32:99–104.
  23. Ishizuka M, Nagata H, Takagi K, Kubota K: Femoral venous catheterization is a major risk factor for central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection. J Invest Surg 2009;22:16–21.
  24. Ishizuka M, Nagata H, Takagi K, Kubota K: Total parenteral nutrition is a major risk factor for central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection in colorectal cancer patients receiving postoperative chemotherapy. Eur Surg Res 2008;41:341–345.
  25. Mueller-Premru M, Gubina M, Kaufmann ME, Primozic J, Cookson BD: Use of semi-quantitative and quantitative culture methods and typing for studying the epidemiology of central venous catheter-related infections in neonates on parenteral nutrition. J Med Microbiol 1999;48:451–460.
  26. Sitges-Serra A, Girvent M: Catheter-related bloodstream infections. World J Surg 1999;23:589–595.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: January 08, 2009
Accepted: May 14, 2009
Published online: August 01, 2009
Issue release date: September 2009

Number of Print Pages: 5
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 3

ISSN: 0014-312X (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9921 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/ESR


Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.