Chlorhexidine gluconate transparent dressing does not decrease central line‐associated bloodstream infection in critically ill patients: A randomized controlled trial

Background

Central line‐associated blood stream infections are accompanied by increased mortality and health care costs. The application of different types of dressings in infection control has not been fully investigated to date.

Aim

To assess the effects of two different dressing types on central line‐associated bloodstream infections.

Methods

A randomized, nonblinded, controlled trial was conducted. Central lines were randomly allocated to intervention (chlorhexidine gluconate transparent dressing, n = 259) and control groups (standard dressing, n = 215). The central line‐associated bloodstream infection rate was assessed.

Results

A statistically nonsignificant difference was noted in the overall central line‐associated bloodstream infection rates between the two groups. The frequency of dressing changes in the patients with the chlorhexidine gluconate transparent dressing was significantly lower than that in the patients with a standard dressing. The predominant type of infectious microorganisms isolated from the central line‐associated bloodstream infection episodes was Gram‐negative bacteria (57.2%). Gram‐positive bacteria and fungi were noted at lower percentages (28.5% and 14.3%, respectively).

Conclusion

The use of a chlorhexidine gluconate transparent dressing does not decrease the central line‐associated bloodstream infection rate, although it decreases the frequency of dressing changes so may save nursing time.

What is already known about this topic?

The use of a chlorhexidine gluconate transparent dressing has been reported to significantly reduce central line‐associated bloodstream infections or maintain low central line‐associated bloodstream infections in Western countries, but few studies have been carried out in Asian countries.

The chlorhexidine dressing does not decrease central line‐associated bloodstream infections due to the presence of Gram‐negative bacteria.

It has been reported that nurses prefer the chlorhexidine gluconate transparent dressing over the standard dressing.

What this paper adds?

Compared with the standard dressing, the chlorhexidine gluconate transparent dressing does not significantly decrease the central line‐associated bloodstream infection rate.

The predominant infectious microorganisms isolated from central line-associated bloodstream infections episodes were Gram-negative bacteria.

The cost of the chlorhexidine gluconate transparent dressing was significantly higher than that of the standard dressing, although the former could save nursing time due to the decreased frequency of dressing changes.

The implications of this paper are as follows:

The use of chlorhexidine gluconate transparent dressing does not offer any additional benefit in controlling infection.

Further studies are required to identify ways to control the colonization or infection of Gram‐negative bacteria in patients because Gram‐negative bacteria are the predominant infectious microorganisms that cause central line‐associated bloodstream infection.

The use of a chlorhexidine gluconate transparent dressing is proposed as an alternative choice that can reduce ICU nursing time in hospital settings and therefore should be considered by nursing managers for human resource cost control.

WITHDRAWN: Gauze and tape and transparent polyurethane dressings for central venous catheters

This review has been withdrawn as the topic is covered by Ullman AJ, Cooke ML, Mitchell M, Lin F, New K, Long DA, Mihala G, Rickard CM. Dressings and securement devices for central venous catheters (CVC). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015 , Issue 9 . Art. No.: CD010367. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010367.pub2 .

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

Dressing and securement for central venous access devices (CVADs): A Cochrane systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To compare the available dressing and securement devices for central venous access devices (CVADs).

DESIGN

Systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews and of Effects, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, clinical trial registries and reference lists of identified trials.

REVIEW METHODS

Studies evaluated the effects of dressing and securement devices for CVADs. All types of CVADs were included. Outcome measures were CVAD-related bloodstream infection, CVAD tip colonisation, entry and exit site infection, skin colonisation, skin irritation, failed CVAD securement, dressing condition and mortality. We used standard methodological approaches as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

RESULTS

We included 22 studies involving 7436 participants comparing nine different types of securement device or dressing. All included studies were at unclear or high risk of performance bias due to the different appearances of the dressings and securement devices. It is unclear whether there is a difference in the rate of CVAD-related bloodstream infection between securement with gauze and tape and standard polyurethane (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.63, low quality evidence), or between chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated dressings and standard polyurethane (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.05, moderate quality evidence). There is high quality evidence that medication-impregnated dressings reduce the incidence of CVAD-related bloodstream infection relative to all other dressing types (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.93). There is moderate quality evidence that chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated dressings reduce the frequency of CVAD-related bloodstream infection per 1000 patient days compared with standard polyurethane dressings (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.78). There is moderate quality evidence that catheter tip colonisation is reduced with chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated dressings compared with standard polyurethane dressings (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.73), but the relative effects of gauze and tape and standard polyurethane are unclear (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.77, very low quality evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

Medication-impregnated dressing products reduce the incidence of CVAD-related bloodstream infection relative to all other dressing types. There is some evidence that chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated dressings, relative to standard polyurethane dressings, reduce CVAD-related bloodstream infection for the outcomes of frequency of infection per 1000 patient days, risk of catheter tip colonisation and possibly risk of CVAD-related bloodstream infection. Most studies were conducted in intensive care unit settings. More, high quality research is needed regarding the relative effects of dressing and securement products for CVADs.

Tegaderm CHG IV Securement Dressing for Central Venous and Arterial Catheter Insertion Sites: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance

Catheters are widely used for vascular access and for the administration of drugs or fluids in critically ill patients. This exposes patients to an infection risk. Tegaderm chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) (developed by 3M)-a transparent securement dressing-covers and protects catheter sites and secures devices to the skin. It comprises a transparent adhesive dressing to act as a barrier against external contamination and an integrated gel pad containing an antiseptic agent. The Medical Technologies Advisory Committee (MTAC) at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) selected Tegaderm CHG for evaluation. One study was identified by the sponsor as relevant to the decision problem. From this, the sponsor concluded that compared with standard dressings, Tegaderm CHG is associated with lower rates of catheter-related infection, but increased dermatitis incidence. The External Assessment Centre (EAC) identified four paired comparative studies between Tegaderm CHG, other CHG dressings or standard dressings. The EAC agreed with the sponsor's conclusion, finding that CHG dressings reduce infections compared with standard dressings. The sponsor constructed a de novo costing model. Tegaderm CHG generated cost savings of £77.26 per patient compared with standard dressings and was cost saving in 98.5 % of a sample of sets of inputs (2013 prices). The EAC critiqued and updated the model's inputs, yielding similar results to those the sponsor estimate. The MTAC reviewed the evidence and decided to support the case for adoption, issuing a positive draft recommendation. After a public consultation, NICE published this as Medical Technology Guidance 25.

Tegaderm™ CHG Dressing Significantly Improves Catheter-related Infection Rate in Hemodialysis Patients

Introduction

Catheter-related infections are an important clinical problem in maintenance hemodialysis patients. Catheter-related bloodstream infections have a negative effect on survival, hospitalization and cost of care. Tegaderm™ chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) dressing may be useful to reduce catheter-related infection rates.

Methods

We performed a study to assess the efficacy of Tegaderm™ CHG dressing for reducing catheter-related infections. We designed a prospective randomized cross-over study with a scheme of two treatments, Tegaderm™ CHG dressing versus standard dressing, and two periods of six months. Catheter-related infection rate was the primary outcome. We enrolled 59 prevalent hemodialysis patients.

Results

Catheter-related infection rate per 1000 catheter days was reduced from 1.21 in patients using standard dressing to 0.28 in patients with Tegaderm™ CHG dressing (p = 0.02). Catheter-related bloodstream infection rate per 1000 catheter days was equal to 0.09 in patients with Tegaderm™ CHG dressing versus 0.65 in patients with standard dressing (p = 0.05). Annual total healthcare costs for catheter-related bloodstream infections were estimated equal to EUR62,459 versus EUR300,399, respectively, for patients with Tegaderm™ CHG versus standard dressing.

Conclusions

This is the first prospective study to show that Tegaderm™ CHG dressing significantly reduces catheter-related infection rates in hemodialysis patients.

Dressings and securement devices for central venous catheters (CVC)

BACKGROUND

Central venous catheters (CVCs) play a vital role in the management of acute and chronic illness. Dressings and securement devices must ensure CVCs do not dislodge or fall out, provide a barrier protection from microbial colonisation and infection, and be comfortable for the patient. There is a large range of dressing and securement products available for clinicians to use.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the available dressing and securement devices for CVCs, in terms of catheter-related bloodstream infection (BSI), catheter colonisation, entry- and exit-site infection, skin colonisation, skin irritation, failed catheter securement, dressing condition and mortality.

SEARCH METHODS

In June 2015 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE); NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHSEED); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; EBSCO CINAHL; six clinical trial registries and reference lists of identified trials. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that evaluated the effects of dressing and securement devices for CVCs. All types of CVCs were included, i.e. short- and long-term CVCs, tunnelled and non-tunnelled, port-a-caths, haemodialysis catheters, and peripherally-inserted central catheters (PICCs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane Collaboration methods including independent review of titles and abstracts for relevance, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment of the included studies by two review authors. Results are expressed using risk ratio (RR) for categorical data with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For outcomes best presented as a rate-per-time-period, rate ratios and standard errors have been used. We performed multiple treatment meta-analyses to rank the effectiveness of each intervention for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 studies involving 7436 participants comparing nine different types of securement device or dressing. All included studies were at unclear or high risk of performance bias due to the different appearances of the dressings and securement devices. The extent of blinding of outcome assessment was unclear in most studies. The quality of evidence varied between different comparisons and outcomes. We mainly downgraded the quality of evidence for imprecision, indirectness, risk of bias and inconsistency.It is unclear whether there is a difference in the rate of catheter-related BSI between securement with gauze and tape and standard polyurethane (SPU) (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.63, low quality evidence), or between chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated (CGI) dressings and SPU (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.05, moderate quality evidence). There is high quality evidence that medication-impregnated dressings reduce the incidence of catheter-related BSI relative to all other dressing types (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.93).There is moderate quality evidence that CGI dressings reduce the frequency of catheter-related BSI per 1000 patient days compared with SPU dressings (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.78).There is moderate quality evidence that catheter tip colonisation is reduced with CGI dressings compared with SPU dressings (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.73), but the relative effects of gauze and tape and SPU are unclear (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.77, very low quality evidence). It is unclear if there is a difference in rates of skin irritation or damage when CGI dressings are compared with SPU dressings (moderate quality evidence) (RR 11.17, 95% CI 0.84 to 149.48).A multiple treatment meta-analysis found sutureless securement devices as likely to be the most effective at reducing the incidence of catheter-related BSI (low quality evidence), with CGI dressings ranked second (low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Medication-impregnated dressing products reduce the incidence of catheter-related BSI relative to all other dressing types. There is some evidence that CGI dressings, relative to SPU dressings, reduce catheter-related BSI for the outcomes of frequency of infection per 1000 patient days, risk of catheter tip colonisation and possibly risk of catheter-related BSI. A multiple treatment meta-analysis found that sutureless securement devices are likely to be the most effective at reducing catheter-related BSI though this is low quality evidence. Most studies were conducted in intensive care unit (ICU) settings. More, high quality research is needed regarding the relative effects of dressing and securement products for CVCs. Future research may adjust the estimates of effect for the products included in this review and is needed to assess the effectiveness of new products.

Gauze and tape and transparent polyurethane dressings for central venous catheters

BACKGROUND

Central venous catheters (CVCs) facilitate venous access, allowing the intravenous administration of complex drug treatments, blood products and nutritional support, without the trauma associated with repeated venepuncture. However, CVCs are associated with a risk of infection. Some studies have indicated that the type of dressing used with them may affect the risk of infection. Gauze and tape, transparent polyurethane film dressings such as Tegaderm® and Opsite®, and highly vapour-permeable transparent polyurethane film dressings such as Opsite IV3000®, are the most common types of dressing used to secure CVCs. Currently, it is not clear which type of dressing is the most appropriate.

OBJECTIVES

To compare gauze and tape with transparent polyurethane CVC dressings in terms of catheter-related infection, catheter security, tolerance to dressing material and dressing condition in hospitalised adults and children.

SEARCH METHODS

For this third update, we searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (10 May 2011); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to April Week 4 2011); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, May 11, 2011); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2011 Week 18); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 6 May 2011).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of dressing type (e.g. gauze and tape versus transparent polyurethane dressings) on CVC-related infection, catheter security, tolerance to dressing material and dressing condition in hospitalised patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies were included in earlier versions of the review. In this update two of the previously included papers have been excluded and two new trials have been added. Of these six trials, four compared gauze and tape with transparent polyurethane dressings (total participants = 337) and two compared different transparent polyurethane dressings (total participants = 126). Catheter-related bloodstream infection was higher in the transparent polyurethane group when compared with gauze and tape; OR 4.19 (95%CI 1.02 to 17.23) however these small trials were at risk of bias so this evidence is graded low quality. There was no evidence of a difference between highly permeable polyurethane dressings and other polyurethane dressings in the prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infection (low quality evidence). No other significant differences were found.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found a four-fold increase in the rate of catheter related blood stream infection when a polyurethane dressing was used to secure the central venous catheter however this research was at risk of bias and the confidence intervals were wide indicating high uncertainty around this estimate; so the true effect could be as small as 2% or as high as 17-fold. More, better quality research is needed regarding the relative effects of gauze and tape versus polyurethane dressings for central venous catheter sites.

Clinical Performance and Nursing Satisfaction of a Transparent Chlorhexidine Gluconate IV Securement Dressing with Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters

Background: Bloodstream Infections (BSI) caused by central venous catheters, including peripherally inserted central catheters, can result in longer patient stays and increased complications. Using methods of best practice is needed to reduce the occurrence of these infections.

Objective: To evaluate both the clinical performance and nursing satisfaction is using the 3M Tegaderm CHG IV Securement Dressing®.

Methods: Prospective, controlled, convenience sampling and in a single center, comparing using the 3M Tegaderm CHG IV Securement Dressing® to a regular transparent semi-permeable dressing There were a total of 107 patients in the study sample, and 110 patients in the control sample.

Results: The results of the satisfaction survey for the investigational dressing group compared with the control dressing group reflected significant p-values of the following primary efficacy variable (1–5 Likert scale), “Overall performance of dressing” (p=0.019951).

Conclusions: The 3M Tegaderm CHG IV Securement Dressing® was easy to apply, able to absorb fluid and mold and conform around the PICC catheters, and rated highly by staff nurses for overall performance of the dressing compared to control dressing.