Safety and efficacy of 2% chlorhexidine gluconate aqueous versus 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol for skin disinfection prior to percutaneous central venous catheter insertion in preterm neonates: the ARCTIC randomised-controlled feasibility trial protocol

Impact of daily octenidine skin washing versus nonwashing on antiseptic tolerance of coagulase-negative staphylococci in two neonatal intensive care units with different skin cleansing practices

Background

There is wide variation in practices regarding routine bathing/washing of babies in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). Evidence is lacking as to the benefit of routine antiseptic washes for reducing infection. We aimed to compare the antiseptic tolerance of Coagulase Negative Staphylococci (CoNS) within two UK NICUs with very different approaches to skin washing.

Methods

We compared antiseptic susceptibility of CoNS isolated from skin swabs of neonates admitted to the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital (NNUH) NICU in December 2017-March 2018 with those isolated in the Bradford Royal Infirmary (BRI) NICU in January-March 2020. The NNUH does not practise routine whole-body washing whereas BRI practises daily whole-body washing from post-menstrual age 27 weeks using Octenisan wash lotion (0.3% octenidine; 1 minute contact time before washing off with sterile water). A total of 78 CoNS isolates from BRI and 863 from the NNUH were tested for susceptibility against the antiseptics octenidine (OCT) and chlorhexidine (CHX).

Results

Isolates from the BRI with practice of routine washing did not show increased antiseptic tolerance to OCT or CHX. Isolates from the NNUH which does not practise routine whole-body washing and rarely uses octenidine, were comparatively less susceptible to both CHX and OCT antiseptics.

Conclusions

Daily whole-body skin washing with OCT does not appear to select for CoNS isolates that are antiseptic tolerant towards OCT and CHX. There remains considerable uncertainty about the impact of different antiseptic regimes on neonatal skin microbiota, the benefit of routine washing, and the development of antiseptic tolerance in the NICU.

2% chlorhexidine gluconate aqueous versus 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol for skin disinfection prior to percutaneous central venous catheterisation: the ARCTIC randomised controlled feasibility trial

OBJECTIVE

Catheter-related sepsis (CRS) is a major complication with significant morbidity and mortality. Evidence is lacking regarding the most appropriate antiseptic for skin disinfection before percutaneous central venous catheter (PCVC) insertion in preterm neonates. To inform the feasibility and design of a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) of two antiseptic formulations, we conducted the Antiseptic Randomised Controlled Trial for Insertion of Catheters (ARCTIC) feasibility study to assess catheter colonisation, sepsis, and skin morbidity.

DESIGN

Feasibility RCT.

SETTING

Two UK tertiary-level neonatal intensive care units.

PATIENTS

Preterm infants born <34 weeks' gestation scheduled to undergo PCVC insertion.

INTERVENTIONS

Skin disinfection with either 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG)-aqueous or 2% CHG-70% isopropyl alcohol (IPA) before PCVC insertion and at removal.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

Proportion in the 2% CHG-70% IPA arm with a colonised catheter at removal.

MAIN FEASIBILITY OUTCOMES

Rates of: (1) CRS, catheter-associated sepsis (CAS), and CRS/CAS per 1,000 PCVC days; (2) recruitment and retention; (3) data completeness.

SAFETY OUTCOMES

Daily skin morbidity scores recorded from catheter insertion until 48 hours post-removal.

RESULTS

116 babies were randomised. Primary outcome incidence was 4.1% (95% confidence interval: 0.9% to 11.5%). Overall catheter colonisation rate was 5.2% (5/97); CRS 2.3/1000 catheter days; CAS 14.8/1000 catheter days. Recruitment, retention and data completeness were good. No major antiseptic-related skin injury was reported.

CONCLUSIONS

A definitive comparative efficacy trial is feasible, but the very low catheter colonisation rate would make a large-scale RCT challenging due to the very large sample size required. ARCTIC provides preliminary reassurance supporting potential safe use of 2% CHG-70% IPA and 2% CHG-aqueous in preterm neonates.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN82571474.

Antiseptic solutions for skin preparation during central catheter insertion in neonates

BACKGROUND

Central venous catheters (CVC) are associated with potentially dangerous complications such as thromboses, pericardial effusions, extravasation, and infections in neonates. Indwelling catheters are amongst the main risk factors for nosocomial infections. The use of skin antiseptics during the preparation for central catheter insertion may prevent catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI) and central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI). However, it is still not clear which antiseptic solution is the best to prevent infection with minimal side effects.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically evaluate the safety and efficacy of different antiseptic solutions in preventing CRBSI and other related outcomes in neonates with CVC.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries up to 22 April 2022. We checked reference lists of included trials and systematic reviews that related to the intervention or population examined in this Cochrane Review.  SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion in this review if they were performed in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), and were comparing any antiseptic solution (single or in combination) against any other type of antiseptic solution or no antiseptic solution or placebo in preparation for central catheter insertion. We excluded cross-over trials and quasi-RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methods from Cochrane Neonatal. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three trials that had two different comparisons: 2% chlorhexidine in 70% isopropyl alcohol (CHG-IPA) versus 10% povidone-iodine (PI) (two trials); and CHG-IPA versus 2% chlorhexidine in aqueous solution (CHG-A) (one trial). A total of 466 neonates from level III NICUs were evaluated. All included trials were at high risk of bias. The certainty of the evidence for the primary and some important secondary outcomes ranged from very low to moderate. There were no included trials that compared antiseptic skin solutions with no antiseptic solution or placebo. CHG-IPA versus 10% PI Compared to PI, CHG-IPA may result in little to no difference in CRBSI (risk ratio (RR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 3.25; risk difference (RD) 0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.06; 352 infants, 2 trials, low-certainty evidence) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.68; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.06; 304 infants, 1 trial, low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of CHG-IPA on CLABSI (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.08; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.11; 48 infants, 1 trial; very low-certainty evidence) and chemical burns (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.24 to 4.48; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03; 352 infants, 2 trials, very low-certainty evidence), compared to PI. Based on a single trial, infants receiving CHG-IPA appeared less likely to develop thyroid dysfunction compared to PI (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.85; RD -0.06, 95% CI -0.10 to -0.02; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 17, 95% CI 10 to 50; 304 infants). Neither of the two included trials assessed the outcome of premature central line removal or the proportion of infants or catheters with exit-site infection. CHG-IPA versus CHG-A The evidence suggests CHG-IPA may result in little to no difference in the rate of proven CRBSI when applied on the skin of neonates prior to central line insertion (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.87; RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.13; 106 infants, 1 trial, low-certainty evidence) and CLABSI (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.34 to 3.84; RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.15; 106 infants, 1 trial, low-certainty evidence), compared to CHG-A. Compared to CHG-A, CHG-IPA probably results in little to no difference in premature catheter removal (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.26 to 3.19; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.13; 106 infants, 1 trial, moderate-certainty evidence) and chemical burns (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.03; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.18; 114 infants, 1 trial, moderate-certainty evidence). No trial assessed the outcome of all-cause mortality and the proportion of infants or catheters with exit-site infection.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on current evidence, compared to PI, CHG-IPA may result in little to no difference in CRBSI and mortality. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of CHG-IPA on CLABSI and chemical burns. One trial showed a statistically significant increase in thyroid dysfunction with the use of PI compared to CHG-IPA. The evidence suggests CHG-IPA may result in little to no difference in the rate of proven CRBSI and CLABSI when applied on the skin of neonates prior to central line insertion. Compared to CHG-A, CHG-IPA probably results in little to no difference in chemical burns and premature catheter removal. Further trials that compare different antiseptic solutions are required, especially in low- and middle-income countries, before stronger conclusions can be made.

How to improve aseptic technique to reduce bloodstream infection during vascular access procedures

Bloodstream infections associated with vascular access procedures pose a serious risk to patients that can be reduced by better standards of aseptic technique. The objectives of this roundtable of experts were to achieve a consensus on how to improve skin antisepsis in hospital, improve training, competency, compliance and consistency in skin antisepsis, review the role of devices in improving skin antisepsis, identify methods to improve skin antisepsis integrated with the Aseptic Non Touch Technique (ANTT®) approach, and identify challenges to the implementation of the panel's recommendations. Recommendations include using MHRA-licensed 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol solution with bidirectional strokes for up to 30 seconds, then leaving the skin to air dry for 30 seconds; using the ANTT Clinical Practice Framework and terminology as the standard for skin antisepsis training and practice; standardised ANTT and skin antisepsis education with 3-yearly competency assessments for all UK health professionals; and more research to address the evidence gap on transmission of infection after skin antisepsis.

2% aqueous vs alcohol-based chlorhexidine for skin antisepsis in VLBW neonates undergoing peripheral venipuncture: a non-inferiority trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare 2% aqueous chlorhexidine gluconate (AQC) vs. 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol (ALC) for pre-venipuncture skin antisepsis in very-low-birth-weight neonates (VLBW, birth-weight <1500 grams).

STUDY DESIGN

Double-blind, non-inferiority trial randomized 199 VLBW neonates, age 2-28 days, to receive pre-venipuncture skin preparation using single application of swabstick impregnated with AQC (n = 99) or ALC (n = 100). Skin clearance rate (percentage post-cleansing skin swabs with <15 bacterial colony forming units) with a 10% non-inferiority margin for AQC was primary outcome. Absolute and relative CFU reduction and adverse skin reactions were compared.

RESULTS

AQC's clearance was non-inferior to ALC (91% vs. 88%; 95% CI -6.6%, +12.4%). Median (interquartile range) absolute [61 (16, 110) vs. 63 (18, 100); p = 0.65] and relative [100% (97%, 100%) vs. 100% (99.7%, 100%); p = 0.20] CFU reductions were similar. Neither group experienced any adverse reactions.

CONCLUSION

AQC may provide non-inferior skin disinfection to ALC in VLBW neonates.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01270776.

Healthcare-Associated Infection Prevention Interventions for Neonates in Resource-Limited Settings

Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) infections are leading causes of neonatal morbidity and mortality, contributing to an extended hospital stay and increased healthcare costs. Although the burden and impact of HAI/AMR in resource-limited neonatal units are substantial, there are few HAI/AMR prevention studies in these settings. We reviewed the mechanism of action and evidence supporting HAI/AMR prevention interventions, including care bundles, for hospitalized neonates in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC).

Aqueous chlorhexidine 1% versus 2% for neonatal skin antisepsis: a randomised non-inferiority trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether 1% aqueous chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) when compared with 2% aqueous chlorhexidine gluconate is non-inferior for neonatal skin antisepsis.

DESIGN

Parallel, blinded, non-inferiority randomised trial.

SETTING

Level III, academic, neonatal intensive care unit.

PATIENTS

Infants born at 26^0/7 to 42^6/7 weeks of gestation from June 2019 to December 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomised to skin antisepsis by either 1% aqueous CHG or 2% aqueous CHG.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the proportion of negative skin swab cultures after skin antisepsis. Secondary outcomes were local skin reactions at 0, 6, 12 and 24 hours and plasma chlorhexidine levels in a subset of the study population.

RESULTS

A total of 308 neonates with a median gestation age of 34 (31-37) weeks and mean birth weight of 2029 g were randomised on 685 occasions (1% CHG: n=341; 2% CHG: n=344). 93.0% of the post-antisepsis skin swabs were sterile in 1% CHG group compared with 95.6% of the swabs in the 2% CHG group (risk difference -2.7%, 95% CI -6.2% to +0.8%). The lower bound of 95% CI crossed the pre-specified absolute non-inferiority limit of 5%. Neonates developed mild dermatitis on 16 (2.3%) occasions. There was no significant difference in median plasma CHG levels in the two groups, 19.6 (12.5-36.4) and 12.6 (8.7-26.6) ng/mL, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Application of 1% aqueous CHG was not shown to be non-inferior to 2% chlorhexidine aqueous for skin antisepsis in neonates. There were no severe skin-related adverse events in either of the two groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CTRI/2019/06/019822; (http://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?trialid=33453&EncHid=&userName=CTRI/2019/06/019822).

Alcohol (70%) versus alcoholic chlorhexidine solution (0.5%) in skin antisepsis for neuraxial blocks: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

to compare the use of 0.5% alcoholic chlorhexidine and 70% alcohol in skin antisepsis for neuraxial blocks.

METHOD

this is a non-inferiority randomized clinical trial, with two parallel arms. Seventy patients who were candidates for neuraxial block were randomly allocated to group A (n = 35), in whom antisepsis was performed with 0.5% alcoholic chlorhexidine, or to group B (n = 35), in whom we used 70% hydrated ethyl alcohol. Swabs were harvested for culture at three times: before antisepsis, two minutes after application of the antiseptic, and immediately after puncture. The samples were sown in three culture media and the number of colony forming units (CFU) per cm² was counted.

RESULTS

there was no difference between the groups regarding age, sex, body mass index, time to perform the block or type of block. There were no differences between groups in the CFU/cm² counts before antisepsis. There was less bacterial growth in group B two minutes after application of the antiseptic (p = 0.048), but there was no difference between the groups regarding the number of CFU/cm² at the end of the puncture.

CONCLUSION

70% alcohol was more effective in reducing the number of CFU/cm² after two minutes, and there was no difference between the two groups regarding skin colonization at the end of the procedure. These results suggest that 70% alcohol may be an option for skin antisepsis before neuraxial blocks. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02833376.

Chlorhexidine Gluconate Utilization for Infection Prevention in the NICU: A Survey of Current Practice

BACKGROUND

Central-line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) contributes to significant morbidity and mortality in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Disinfection of skin is part of bundled cares aimed at prevention of CLABSI. While considered an essential component of insertion and maintenance bundles, the optimal solution to disinfect neonatal skin remains controversial.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this project was to survey neonatal nurse practitioners and nursing leaders across NICUs regarding the current use of chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) in term and preterm infants.

METHODS

This descriptive study involved the collection of survey data to determine NICU practices related to the use of CHG in their infant population. The sample was composed of nursing directors of NICUs and neonatal nurse practitioners who completed an electronic survey via a provided link.

FINDINGS/RESULTS

Chlorhexidine was reported to be used in 53 (82.81%) of the NICUs and was the primary agent used to prepare the skin for central vascular catheter insertion (53.23%) followed by povidone-iodine (45.16%), and 70% isopropyl alcohol (1.61%). Gestational age or birth weight restrictions for CHG use were reported in 43 (82.69%) NICUs. Trends in the data demonstrated nursing's role in using CHG in the NICU. Adverse events reported from CHG included burns, redness, dermatitis, and other irritations. Concerns included risk of absorption, burns, skin irritation, lack of evidence, and overall safety.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Systematic monitoring by nurse leaders is needed to identify evidence related to skin disinfection and CHG in neonates. Targeted education for nursing staff related to directed to developmental maturation of the skin, safe use of CHG, review of best evidence, rationale for usage of CHG, and potential iatrogenic effects is recommended.

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH

Research is needed to evaluate the impact of educational offerings and surveillance for adverse events on CLABSI rates.