Differential Effects of Chlorhexidine Skin Cleansing Methods on Residual Chlorhexidine Skin Concentrations and Bacterial Recovery. (1st March 2018)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- Differential Effects of Chlorhexidine Skin Cleansing Methods on Residual Chlorhexidine Skin Concentrations and Bacterial Recovery. (1st March 2018)
- Main Title:
- Differential Effects of Chlorhexidine Skin Cleansing Methods on Residual Chlorhexidine Skin Concentrations and Bacterial Recovery
- Authors:
- Rhee, Yoona
Palmer, Louisa J.
Okamoto, Koh
Gemunden, Sean
Hammouda, Khaled
Kemble, Sarah K.
Lin, Michael Y.
Lolans, Karen
Fogg, Louis
Guanaga, Derek
Yokoe, Deborah S.
Weinstein, Robert A.
Frendl, Gyorgy
Hayden, Mary K. - Other Names:
- collab.
- Abstract:
- Abstract : BACKGROUND: Bathing intensive care unit (ICU) patients with 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG)–impregnated cloths decreases the risk of healthcare-associated bacteremia and multidrug-resistant organism transmission. Hospitals employ different methods of CHG bathing, and few studies have evaluated whether those methods yield comparable results. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether 3 different CHG skin cleansing methods yield similar residual CHG concentrations and bacterial densities on skin. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized 2-center study with blinded assessment. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Healthcare personnel in surgical ICUs at 2 tertiary-care teaching hospitals in Chicago, Illinois, and Boston, Massachusetts, from July 2015 to January 2016. INTERVENTION: Cleansing skin of one forearm with no-rinse 2% CHG-impregnated polyester cloth (method A) versus 4% CHG liquid cleansing with rinsing on the contralateral arm, applied with either non–antiseptic-impregnated cellulose/polyester cloth (method B) or cotton washcloth dampened with sterile water (method C). RESULTS: In total, 63 participants (126 forearms) received method A on 1 forearm (n=63). On the contralateral forearm, 33 participants received method B and 30 participants received method C. Immediately and 6 hours after cleansing, method A yielded the highest residual CHG concentrations (2500 µg/mL and 1250 µg/mL, respectively) and lowest bacterial densities compared to methods B or C ( P <.001). CONCLUSION: In healthyAbstract : BACKGROUND: Bathing intensive care unit (ICU) patients with 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG)–impregnated cloths decreases the risk of healthcare-associated bacteremia and multidrug-resistant organism transmission. Hospitals employ different methods of CHG bathing, and few studies have evaluated whether those methods yield comparable results. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether 3 different CHG skin cleansing methods yield similar residual CHG concentrations and bacterial densities on skin. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized 2-center study with blinded assessment. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Healthcare personnel in surgical ICUs at 2 tertiary-care teaching hospitals in Chicago, Illinois, and Boston, Massachusetts, from July 2015 to January 2016. INTERVENTION: Cleansing skin of one forearm with no-rinse 2% CHG-impregnated polyester cloth (method A) versus 4% CHG liquid cleansing with rinsing on the contralateral arm, applied with either non–antiseptic-impregnated cellulose/polyester cloth (method B) or cotton washcloth dampened with sterile water (method C). RESULTS: In total, 63 participants (126 forearms) received method A on 1 forearm (n=63). On the contralateral forearm, 33 participants received method B and 30 participants received method C. Immediately and 6 hours after cleansing, method A yielded the highest residual CHG concentrations (2500 µg/mL and 1250 µg/mL, respectively) and lowest bacterial densities compared to methods B or C ( P <.001). CONCLUSION: In healthy volunteers, cleansing with 2% CHG-impregnated cloths yielded higher residual CHG concentrations and lower bacterial densities than cleansing with 4% CHG liquid applied with either of 2 different cloth types and followed by rinsing. The relevance of these differences to clinical outcomes remains to be determined. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:405–411 … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- Infection control and hospital epidemiology. Volume 39:Number 4(2018)
- Journal:
- Infection control and hospital epidemiology
- Issue:
- Volume 39:Number 4(2018)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 39, Issue 4 (2018)
- Year:
- 2018
- Volume:
- 39
- Issue:
- 4
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2018-0039-0004-0000
- Page Start:
- 405
- Page End:
- 411
- Publication Date:
- 2018-03-01
- Subjects:
- Nosocomial infections -- Epidemiology -- Periodicals
Health facilities -- Sanitation -- Periodicals
Hospital buildings -- Sanitation -- Periodicals
Cross Infection -- Periodicals
Epidemiology -- Periodicals
Hospitals -- Periodicals
Infection Control -- Periodicals
614.44 - Journal URLs:
- http://gateway.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&MODE=ovid&NEWS=n&PAGE=toc&D=ovft&AN=00004848-000000000-00000 ↗
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=ICE ↗
http://www.ichejournal.com/default.asp ↗
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ICHE/home.html ↗
http://www.jstor.org/journals/0899823X.html ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1017/ice.2017.312 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 0899-823X
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library STI - ELD Digital store
- Ingest File:
- 6016.xml