| Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3406162 | Journal of Infection and Public Health | 2012 | 8 Pages |
SummaryPurposeTo make a field comparison of the effectiveness, ease of use, and cost of a chlorhexidine antiseptic solution (CBA) and an alcohol-based povidone-iodine solution (PVP-IA) for the prevention of central venous catheter (CVC)-related infections in an intensive care unit, with the aim of identifying the superior antisepsis agent.Materials and methodsWe measured the CVC colonization and infection incidence for PVP-IA (Betadine alcoolique®) and for CBA (Biseptine®) during two successive 1-year periods of routine surveillance (REA RAISIN network). A questionnaire on the ease of CBA use was administered. Consumption data were obtained from the hospital pharmacy.ResultsThe study included 806 CVC (CBA period: 371). Upon switching from PVP-IA to CBA, we recorded a significant reduction in colonization incidence/100 catheter days (1.12 vs. 1.55, p = 0.041), nonsignificant differences concerning CVC-related infection incidence/100 catheter days (0.28 vs. 0.26, p = 0.426), and a nonsignificant reduction in CVC-related bacteremia/100 catheter days (0.14 vs. 0.30, p = 0.052). PVP-IA users were at significantly higher risk of CVC colonization or infection based on a multivariate Cox model analysis (relative risk [95% CI]: 1.48 [1.01–2.15], p = 0.043). The main drawbacks of CBA use were its low cleansing activity and its colorless solution. No cost advantage was found.ConclusionsOur field study revealed no major clinical advantage of CBA use in CVC infection and no cost advantage in addition to limited ease of use.
► Chlorhexidine antiseptic has been compared to alcoholic povidone-iodine solution. ► Field test was conducted in critical care unit. ► Catheter related infection was measured and users opinion was asked. ► No major clinical advantage of chlorhexidine use was proved in infection prevention. ► No cost advantage was found, with a limited ease of use.
