Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T02:12:46.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Pracha Nuntnarumit  and
Nartsiri Sangsuksawang
Pracha Nuntnarumit*
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
Nartsiri Sangsuksawang
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
*
Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Rama 6 road, Bangkok, Thailand. 10400 ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We conducted a randomized controlled trial in neonates with birth weight greater than or equal to 1,500 g that compared 1% aqueous chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) with 10% povidone–iodine (PI) as a topical antiseptic. We found 1% CHG to be more effective than 1% PI in reducing blood culture contamination rates, and no contact dermatitis was observed.

Type
Concise Communication
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , April 2013 , pp. 430 - 432
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Bates, DW, Goldman, L, Lee, TH. Contaminant blood cultures and resource utilization: the true consequences of false-positive results. JAMA 1991;265:365–369.Google Scholar
2.Suwanpimolkul, G, Pongkumpai, M, Suankratay, C. A randomized trial of 2% chlorhexidine tincture compared with 10% aqueous povidone-iodine for venipuncture site disinfection: effects on blood culture contamination rates. J Infect 2008;56:354–359.Google Scholar
3.Linder, N, Prince, S, Barzilai, A, et al.Disinfection with 10% povidone-iodine versus 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropanol in the neonatal intensive care unit. Acta Paediatr 2004;93:205–210.Google Scholar
4.Lim, KS, Kam, PC. Chlorhexidine-pharmacology and clinical applications. Anaesth Intensive Care 2008;36:502–512.Google Scholar
5.Caldeira, D, David, C, Sampaio, C. Skin antiseptics in venous puncture-site disinfection for prevention of blood culture contamination: systematic review with meta-analysis. J Hosp Infect 2011;77:223–232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.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.Google Scholar
7.O'Grady, NP, Alexander, M, Burns, LA, et al.Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Am J Infect Control 2011;39:S1–S34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Chapman, AK, Aucott, SW, Milstone, AM. Safety of chlorhexidine gluconate used for skin antisepsis in the preterm infant. J Perinatol 2012;32:4–9.Google Scholar
9.Garland, JS, Alex, CP, Mueller, CD, Cisler-Kahill, LA. Local reactions to a chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated antimicrobial dressing in very low birth weight infants. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1996;15:912–914.Google Scholar
10.Reynolds, PR, Banerjee, S, Meek, JH. Alcohol burns in extremely low birthweight infants: still occurring. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2005;90:F10.Google Scholar