Severe anaphylactic reaction to chlorhexidine during total hip arthroplasty surgery. A case report

Review of allergic reactions from use of chlorhexidine on medical products in clinical settings over 40 years: Risks and mitigations

Chlorhexidine is an antimicrobial agent widely used for infection prevention in medical settings. Nevertheless, allergic reactions ranging from mild to severe have been reported following its use. In this review, we analyzed all case reports published between the introduction of chlorhexidine and the end of 2019 for allergic responses associated with the use of medical devices and or other medical products containing chlorhexidine (CHX) to ascertain the prevalence of severe CHX allergic reactions and what practices might best mitigate those risks.In total, 77 publications containing 124 reported cases of allergic reactions were grouped into 3 product categories, catheters, semisolids, and fluid products. The country, type of reaction, route of sensitization, allergy confirmation, and intervention or mitigation was extracted for each case. Overall, 30 cases were associated with catheters, 46 cases were associated with semisolid products, and 48 cases were associated with the use of other medical products. Severe cases were managed with intravenous fluids, steroids, and epinephrine (adrenaline). None of the reported cases were fatal. The allergy risks can be mitigated by better warning and training clinicians and by recording and screening patient histories for CHX presensitization from prior exposure. For patients undergoing pre-use blood tests, IgE antibody screens can also be performed. Finally, as a precaution in the event a rare severe allergic reaction occurs, procedure carts and rooms can be prestocked with injectable epinephrine and other rapidly acting anti-inflammatory medications.

Addition of 3% hydrogen peroxide to standard skin preparation reduces Cutibacterium acnes-positive culture rate in shoulder surgery: a prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Hydrogen peroxide is an inexpensive and effective antimicrobial agent that can be implemented in surgical skin preparations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the decolonization effect of Cutibacterium acnes when adding hydrogen peroxide to a standard sterile preparation for shoulder surgery.

METHODS

This was a single-institution, prospective, randomized controlled trial of male patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy (April 2018 and May 2019). Patients were randomized to a standard skin preparation vs. an additional sterile preparation with 3% hydrogen peroxide. After draping, a 3-mm punch biopsy was obtained from the posterior arthroscopic portal site of all patients. Anaerobic and aerobic culture substrates were used and held for 13 days.

RESULTS

Seventy male patients were randomized into the hydrogen peroxide group and 70 male patients were in the traditional group. Twelve (17.1%) patients in the hydrogen peroxide group and 24 (34.2%) patients in the traditional group had positive cultures for C acnes (P = .033). Cultures were positive at a mean of 4.5 days (range 3-7) in the hydrogen peroxide group and 4.1 days (range 3-8) in the traditional group (P = .48). There were no cases of skin reaction to the surgical preparation in either group.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study suggest that the addition of hydrogen peroxide to preoperative surgical site preparation can reduce the C acnes culture rate. Hydrogen peroxide is inexpensive and can be added to the typical skin preparation used prior to shoulder surgery without substantial risk of skin reactions.

Health care worker sensitivity to chlorhexidine-based hand hygiene solutions: A cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Health service hand hygiene programs have seen widespread use of chlorhexidine solutions. Reports of both immediate and delayed hypersensitivity to chlorhexidine are increasing among health care workers. This study examined the prevalence of self-reported symptoms of sensitivity to chlorhexidine solutions among health care workers.

METHODS

This study was a cross-sectional online anonymous survey of all workers at a single health service.

RESULTS

Of the 1,050 completed responses, 76.3% were female, 35.3% were nurses and midwives, 28% were medical staff, and 8.7% were working in nonclinical areas. Over 95% used chlorhexidine-based hand hygiene products in their workplace. Nurses and midwives most frequently reported asthma (13.7%), contact dermatitis (27.8%), and previous testing for allergy to chlorhexidine (4.9%). There was a correlation between both the presence of atopy, eczema, or dermatitis and the self-reporting of dry skin, eczema, or dermatitis attributed to chlorhexidine use.

DISCUSSION

Occupational chlorhexidine allergy is an important risk to health care workers. Self-reported symptoms of sensitivity to chlorhexidine solutions revealed high reported use and presence of skin symptoms among health care workers.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening programs need to identify nurses who develop chlorhexidine sensitivity due to occupational exposure. Strategies to mitigate risk should provide alternatives for those with sensitization.

Chlorhexidine wipes: Time to stop and think about allergy

Summary

We report three precautionary cases of perioperative anaphylaxis to chlorhexidine isopropyl alcohol antiseptic wipes (CAW). In two cases, the patients were inadvertently re-exposed to CAW despite known chlorhexidine hypersensitivity. Chlorhexidine has been described as ‘the hidden allergen’. As a result, patients may suffer multiple reactions before chlorhexidine is confirmed as the cause. Healthcare workers may not recognize that products they use for common clinical steps contain chlorhexidine. These cases highlight the need for constant vigilance to facilitate the safe management of patients with a history of chlorhexidine anaphylaxis.

Chlorhexidine-related anaphylaxis in urological practice

Introduction:

There have been numerous case reports highlighting the risk of anaphylactic reactions when using chlorhexidine-containing urethral gels. However, there is no evidence that the inclusion of chlorhexidine in urethral gels reduces the risk of catheter associated urinary tract infection.

Methods:

Pubmed and Medline were searched for the keywords anaphylaxis (and) chlorhexidine. Case reports were reviewed and information regarding year, patient demographics, country, chlorhexidine administration route, signs, symptoms encountered and the presence of subsequent allergy testing were analysed.

Results:

In terms of clinical features, 89% (32/36) of patients were noted to have skin changes recorded as either urticaria, flushing, rash, erythema or wheals. Respiratory changes were recorded in 67% (24/36), which included those described as bronchospasm, chest tightness, wheeze or cough. Hypotension was documented in 92% of reports (33/36) while hypoxia was recorded in half of the reports (18/36) and a quarter (8/36) had periorbital angioedema or documented oral or tongue swelling. Only four out of 36 patients required formal cardiopulmonary resuscitation and no patients died.

Conclusion:

Chlorhexidine-related anaphylaxis is a relatively frequently reported entity. Despite this, there appears to be no compelling evidence that chlorhexidine mitigates the risk of catheter-associated urinary tract infection.

Level of evidence:

Level 4 evidence.

Topical Antimicrobials in Burn Care: Part 1-Topical Antiseptics

Burn wounds disrupt the body's primary defense against invasion and colonization by microorganisms. Topical antimicrobials are one component in burn wound care. These agents suppress microbial growth to advantage skin cells and wound healing. Topical antimicrobials can be divided into 2 superclasses: antiseptics and antibiotics. We review the 4 main classes of topical antiseptics (emulsifiers, acids, oxidizers, and heavy metals) and antiseptic-impregnated dressings in current clinical use and address the mechanisms, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of each antiseptic for burn wound management.

Current and Emerging Topical Antibacterials and Antiseptics: Agents, Action, and Resistance Patterns

Bacterial skin infections represent some of the most common infectious diseases globally. Prevention and treatment of skin infections can involve application of a topical antimicrobial, which may be an antibiotic (such as mupirocin or fusidic acid) or an antiseptic (such as chlorhexidine or alcohol). However, there is limited evidence to support the widespread prophylactic or therapeutic use of topical agents. Challenges involved in the use of topical antimicrobials include increasing rates of bacterial resistance, local hypersensitivity reactions (particularly to older agents, such as bacitracin), and concerns about the indiscriminate use of antiseptics potentially coselecting for antibiotic resistance. We review the evidence for the major clinical uses of topical antibiotics and antiseptics. In addition, we review the mechanisms of action of common topical agents and define the clinical and molecular epidemiology of antimicrobial resistance in these agents. Moreover, we review the potential use of newer and emerging agents, such as retapamulin and ebselen, and discuss the role of antiseptic agents in preventing bacterial skin infections. A comprehensive understanding of the clinical efficacy and drivers of resistance to topical agents will inform the optimal use of these agents to preserve their activity in the future.

Use of Chlorhexidine Preparations in Total Joint Arthroplasty

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Chlorhexidine is a widely used antiseptic because of its rapid and persistent action. It is well tolerated and available in different formulations at various concentrations. Chlorhexidine can be used for pre-operative skin cleansing, surgical site preparation, hand antisepsis of the surgical team and intra-articular irrigation of infected joints. The optimal intra-articular concentration of chlorhexidine gluconate in irrigation solution is 2%, to provide a persistent decrease in biofilm formation, though cytotoxicity might be an issue. Although chlorhexidine is relatively cheap, routine use of chlorhexidine without evidence of clear benefits can lead to unnecessary costs, adverse effects and even emergence of resistance. This review focuses on the current applications of various chlorhexidine formulations in TJA. As the treatment of PJI is challenging and expensive, effective preparations of chlorhexidine could help in the prevention and control of PJI.

Daily chlorhexidine bathing does not increase skin toxicity after remission induction or stem cell transplantation

OBJECTIVES

A recent multicenter study demonstrated that bathing with chlorhexidine reduces the transmission of resistant organisms and the risk of hospital-acquired bloodstream infections in ICUs. We wanted to confirm the feasibility of this strategy in a cohort of patients in a typical intensive haematology unit.

METHODS

Patients treated with remission induction chemotherapy, autologous or allogeneic stem cell transplantation received daily chlorhexidine bathing. To avoid deshydratation of skin, we used prophylactic application of hydrating lotion, replaced by corticosteroid cream in case of skin toxicity of chemotherapy or conditioning.

RESULTS

We studied 15 consecutive admissions of 12 patients. Daily chlorhexidine bathing never needed to be interrupted, even though 53% of patients were treated with intravenous cytarabine. Patients were satisfied with the skin treatment and reported few unwanted effects.

DISCUSSION

Daily chlorhexidine bathing was feasible in our intensive haematology unit in all patients and did not increase skin toxicity, even when treated with IV cytarabine.

Chlorhexidine Bathing Effects on Health-Care-Associated Infections

BACKGROUND

Health-care-associated infections (HAIs), infections that patients contract during the course of their hospitalization, are receiving a growing amount of attention. Heavy skin bacterial colonization aids in the transmission and development of HAIs. Nurses frequently use bathing with chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) to reduce patients' cutaneous microbial burden. This intervention has been shown to have promising but mixed results in the prevention of HAIs.

PURPOSE

This article reviews the literature for evidence on the impact of CHG bathing on HAIs.

METHOD

A literature search was conducted to identify peer-reviewed studies and meta-analyses that examined the impact of CHG bathing on HAIs using PubMed and CINAHL with the following search terms: CHG bathing AND healthcare associated infections, surgical site infections ( SSIs), central line associated bloodstream infections ( CLABSIs), ventilator-associated pneumonias ( VAP), catheter-associated urinary-tract infections ( CAUTIs), and Clostridium difficile-associated disease. The initial search identified 23 articles for review. Additional studies were identified by searching references used in original studies or review articles on this topic.

PRINCIPLE FINDINGS

There is good evidence to support incorporating a CHG bathing regimen to reduce the incidence of CLABSIs, SSIs, vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) HAIs.

CONCLUSION

As CHG becomes a standard practice to prevent HAIs, it is important to monitor for adverse reactions and evidence of resistance/susceptibility.

Chlorhexidine-induced anaphylaxis in surgical patients: a review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Chlorhexidine (CHL) has antiseptic and disinfectant properties used to prevent hospital-acquired infections. CHL-induced anaphylaxis is poorly reported in surgical literature despite government warnings and growing recognition. The aim of this review is to increase awareness of CHL-induced anaphylaxis in the surgical population.

METHODS

Literature review of Embase, Medline, PubMed and the Cochrane library using 'anaphylaxis (and) chlorhexidine' search terms.

RESULTS

Thirty-six articles were published on surgical patients suffering anaphylaxis to CHL. Within these, seven patients had two proven separate anaphylactic reactions and one had three separate proven anaphylactic reactions. The most commonly affected speciality was urology. The majority occurred during elective procedures. A history of atopy was surprisingly uncommon as was bronchospasm. Six patients required active chest compressions and 39.71% of patients had their surgical procedure abandoned. Unplanned intensive care admissions occurred in 27.94%.

DISCUSSION

In order to reduce abandoned procedures, unplanned intensive care unit admissions, morbidity and mortality associated with CHL-induced anaphylaxis we recommend the following: rationalization of CHL-containing products, greater vigilance regarding subtle symptoms of CHL allergy, appropriate investigation of these symptoms and a greater awareness of CHL-containing products. Lastly, we outline the appropriate investigations and highlight the need for meticulous documentation in those who are CHL allergic.

Anaphylactic reaction to intraurethral chlorhexidine: sensitisation following previous repeated uneventful administration

Instillagel(®) (CliniMed, High Wycombe, UK) is commonly used in urethral catheterisation and to facilitate the passage of instruments into the bladder in urological practice. Its active ingredients include 0.25% chlorhexidine, 2% lidocaine, 0.06% methyl hydroxybenzoate and 0.025% propyl hydroxybenzoate. We discuss the case of an 84-year-old man who received intraurethral Instillagel(®) prior to laser ablation of a recurrent transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder, resulting in anaphylaxis. Subsequent investigation confirmed allergy to chlorhexidine. Although there are previous reports in the literature, this is the first report of intraurethral chlorhexidine resulting in anaphylaxis in a patient who had had repeated, uneventful previous exposures. As such, this case illustrates the phenomenon of chlorhexidine sensitisation and that previous uneventful exposures do not exclude the diagnosis of anaphylaxis in the context of sudden, unexpected deterioration.

Effect of daily chlorhexidine bathing on hospital-acquired infection

BACKGROUND

Results of previous single-center, observational studies suggest that daily bathing of patients with chlorhexidine may prevent hospital-acquired bloodstream infections and the acquisition of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs).

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, cluster-randomized, nonblinded crossover trial to evaluate the effect of daily bathing with chlorhexidine-impregnated washcloths on the acquisition of MDROs and the incidence of hospital-acquired bloodstream infections. Nine intensive care and bone marrow transplantation units in six hospitals were randomly assigned to bathe patients either with no-rinse 2% chlorhexidine-impregnated washcloths or with nonantimicrobial washcloths for a 6-month period, exchanged for the alternate product during the subsequent 6 months. The incidence rates of acquisition of MDROs and the rates of hospital-acquired bloodstream infections were compared between the two periods by means of Poisson regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 7727 patients were enrolled during the study. The overall rate of MDRO acquisition was 5.10 cases per 1000 patient-days with chlorhexidine bathing versus 6.60 cases per 1000 patient-days with nonantimicrobial washcloths (P=0.03), the equivalent of a 23% lower rate with chlorhexidine bathing. The overall rate of hospital-acquired bloodstream infections was 4.78 cases per 1000 patient-days with chlorhexidine bathing versus 6.60 cases per 1000 patient-days with nonantimicrobial washcloths (P=0.007), a 28% lower rate with chlorhexidine-impregnated washcloths. No serious skin reactions were noted during either study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Daily bathing with chlorhexidine-impregnated washcloths significantly reduced the risks of acquisition of MDROs and development of hospital-acquired bloodstream infections. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Sage Products; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00502476.).