medigraphic.com
Boletín Médico del Hospital Infantil de México

2011, Number 5

<< Back Next >>

Bol Med Hosp Infant Mex 2011; 68 (5)

Efficacy of a chlorhexidine-gluconate impregnated patch for prevention of catheter-related infections in pediatric patients: systematic review and meta-analysis

Rivas RR, Villasis KMÁ, Miranda NMG, Castelán MD, Vivanco MN, Chico BG, Clark P

Language: English
References: 27
Page: 349-355
PDF size: 518.38 Kb.


Text Extraction

Background. Nosocomial infections are risk factors related to intrahospital mortality. Among other factors, these infections are strongly associated with invasive devices. In pediatric patients, the central venous catheter (CVC) is one of the most frequently related deviceassociated bloodstream infections. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a chlorhexidine-gluconate impregnated patch (CHGp) in reducing infections related to CVC in pediatric patients.
Methods. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. An electronic search of the literature (Medline, EMBASE, Lilacs and the Cochrane Library Plus) from 1966 to December 2010 was carried out for clinical trials comparing the CHGp vs. standard case management for prevention of catheter tip colonization (CTC); bloodstream infections (BSI) were retrieved.
Results. Only two clinical trials were found with a total of 850 participants. Patients randomized to the CHGp group showed a lower incidence of CTC than the control group (14% vs. 25%), relative risk [RR]: 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI 95% (0.45, 0.81)], p = 0.001), with a number needed to treat of 11. BSI showed a RR: 1.14, ([CI 95% (0.57, 2.28)], p = 0.71). Adverse events were found mainly in the CHGp group and were described as local skin reactions in 5.6% (RR 8.17 [95% CI: 1.19-56.14], p = 0.04). Local necrosis was present in only two infants of very low birth weight (0.48%).
Conclusions. This meta-analysis demonstrated that the chlorhexidine-gluconate impregnated patch is effective in reducing CVC-related infections in the pediatric population. Serious adverse events are rare.


REFERENCES

  1. 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.

  2. Smith MJ. Catheter-related bloodstream infections in children. Am J Infect Control 2008;36:S173.e1-3.

  3. Lau CE. Transparent and gauze dressings and their effect on infection rates of central venous catheters: a review of past and current literature. J Intraven Nurs 1996;19:240-245.

  4. Safdar N, Maki DG. The pathogenesis of catheter-related bloodstream infection with noncuffed short-term central venous catheters. Intensive Care Med 2004;30:62-67.

  5. Hoffmann KK, Weber DJ, Samsa GP, Rutala WA. Transparent polyurethane film as an intravenous catheter dressing. A metaanalysis of the infection risks. JAMA 1992;267:2072-2076.

  6. Egol KA, Paksima N, Puopolo S, Klugman J, Hiebert R, Koval KJ. Treatment of external fixation pins about the wrist: a prospective, randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88:349-354.

  7. Lethaby A, Temple J, Santy J. Pin site care for preventing infections associated with external bone fixators and pins. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;4:CD004551.

  8. Mann TJ, Orlikowski CE, Gurrin LC, Keil AD. The effect of the biopatch, a chlorhexidine impregnated dressing, on bacterial colonization of epidural catheter exit sites. Anaesth Intensive Care 2001;29:600-603.

  9. Shapiro JM, Bond EL, Garman JK. Use of a chlorhexidine dressing to reduce microbial colonization of epidural catheters. Anesthesiology 1990;73:625-631.

  10. Camins BC. Trial Evaluating the Efficacy of a Chlorhexidine-Impregnated Sponge (BIOPATCH®) to Reduce Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections in Hemodialysis Patients. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00550693. Available at: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00550693

  11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Guidelines for the Prevention of Intravascular Catheter-Related Infections. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/pdf/guidelines/bsiguidelines-2011.pdf

  12. Reynolds MG, Tebbs SE, Elliott TS. Do dressings with increased permeability reduce the incidence of central venous catheter related sepsis? Intensive Crit Care Nurs 1997;13:26-29.

  13. 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;24:1818-1823.

  14. International Contact Dermatitis Research Group (ICDRG). Available at: http://www.iscd2001.edu.uy/icdrg.htm (accessed: December 2010)http://www.iscd2001.edu.uy/icdrg.htm.

  15. Bero L, Rennie D. The Cochrane Collaboration. Preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. JAMA 1995;274:1935-1938.

  16. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629-634.

  17. 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;107:1431-1436.

  18. Levy I, Katz J, Solter E, Samra Z, Vidne B, Birk E, et al. Chlorhexidine-impregnated dressing for prevention of colonization of central venous catheters in infants and children: a randomized controlled study. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2005;24:676-679.

  19. Onder AM, Chandar J, Coakley S, Francoeur D, Abitbol C, Zilleruelo G. Controlling exit site infections: does it decrease the incidence of catheter-related bacteremia in children on chronic hemodialysis? Hemodial Int 2009;13:11-18.

  20. Mimoz O, Villeminey S, Ragot S, Dahyot-Fizelier C, Laksiri L, Petitpas F, et al. Chlorhexidine-based antiseptic solution vs alcohol-based povidone-iodine for central venous catheter care. Arch Intern Med 2007;167:2066-2072.

  21. Roberts B, Cheung D. Biopatch™--a new concept in antimicrobial dressings for invasive devices. Aust Crit Care 1998;11:16-19.

  22. Maki DG, Mermel LA, Kluger D, Narans L, Knasinski V, Parenteau S, et al. The efficacy of a chlorhexidine-impregnated sponge (Biopatch™) for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infection: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study. Abstr Intersci Conf Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000;40:422-424 (abstr 1430).

  23. Crawford AG, Fuhr JP Jr, Rao B. Cost-benefit analysis of chlorhexidine gluconate dressing in the prevention of catheterrelated bloodstream infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004;25:668-674.

  24. Timsit JF, Schwebel C, Bouadma L, Geffroy A, Garrouste- Orgeas M, Pease S, et al. Chlorhexidine-impregnated sponges and less frequent dressing changes for prevention of catheterrelated infections in critically ill adults: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2009;301:1231-1241.

  25. 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.

  26. Vandijck DM, Labeau SO, Secanell M, Rello J, Blot SI. The role of nurses working in emergency and critical care environments in the prevention of intravascular catheter-related bloodstream infections. Int Emerg Nurs 2009;17:60-68.

  27. Vokurka S, Bystricka E, Visokaiova M, Scudlova J. Onceversus twice-weekly changing of central venous catheter occlusive dressing in intensive chemotherapy patients: results of a randomized multicenter study. Med Sci Monit 2009;15:CR107-CR110.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com