Department of Emergency Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
Department of Emergency Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
Am J Infect Control. 2019 Oct;47(10):1255-1262. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2019.02.024. Epub 2019 Apr 2.
Assess the efficacy of chlorhexidine with povidone solutions as a skin disinfectant for central venous catheter (CVC) care.
Central venous catheters are widely used for critically ill patients. Catheter maintenance can easily lead to a catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), which is the manifestation of a bloodstream infection (BSI) in a patient who carries a catheter or removes the catheter within 48 hours. There is no clear source of BSIs except for indwelling catheters in the blood vessels, and BSIs significantly increase the morbidity and mortality of patients. We assess the efficacy of chlorhexidine with povidone as a skin disinfectant for CVC care.
In July 2018, we searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, OVID, CNKI, SinoMed, WanFangData, CqVip, and DuXiu for publications in English and Chinese. By searching articles published before July 2018, we were able to extract data on study design, participants, antiseptics compared, sample size, and main outcomes. We conducted meta-analyses of the efficacy of chlorhexidine vs povidone solutions as a skin disinfectant for CVC care.
We included 10 randomized controlled trial studies. After conducting subgroup analysis, the results indicated that chlorhexidine was significantly better than povidone in preventing CRBSIs (P = .12; I = 36%; risk ratio [RR] = 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29-0.85). Compared with povidone, the chlorhexidine catheterization rate of CRBSIs was reduced (P = .16; I = 32%; RR = 0.54; 95% CI, 0.42-0.69). There was no clear difference in the rates of skin reaction between chlorhexidine and povidone (P = .006; I = 87%; RR = 1.92; 95% CI, 0.55-6.72). The comparison was underpowered for BSIs without a clear source.
Chlorhexidine solution for CVC care may significantly reduce rates of CRBSIs and catheter colonization compared with povidone solutions. The disinfection effect of chlorhexidine-alcohol is better than that of other solutions. Because the quality of the studies evaluated is relatively low, the true effects may be different, so more evidence is needed.
评估洗必泰聚维酮溶液作为中心静脉导管(CVC)护理用皮肤消毒剂的疗效。
中心静脉导管在危重病患者中广泛使用。导管维护很容易导致导管相关血流感染(CRBSI),即患者携带导管或在 48 小时内移除导管后出现血流感染(BSI)的表现。除血管内留置导管外,BSI 没有明确的来源,BSI 显著增加了患者的发病率和死亡率。我们评估洗必泰聚维酮溶液作为 CVC 护理用皮肤消毒剂的疗效。
2018 年 7 月,我们检索了 Cochrane 图书馆、PubMed、EMBASE、Web of Science、OVID、CNKI、SinoMed、万方数据、维普、CqVip 和 DuXiu 上发表的英文和中文文献。通过检索 2018 年 7 月之前发表的文章,我们能够提取研究设计、参与者、比较的防腐剂、样本量和主要结果的数据。我们对洗必泰与聚维酮溶液作为 CVC 护理用皮肤消毒剂的疗效进行了荟萃分析。
我们纳入了 10 项随机对照试验研究。经过亚组分析,结果表明,洗必泰在预防 CRBSI 方面明显优于聚维酮(P=0.12;I=36%;风险比[RR]=0.49;95%置信区间[CI],0.29-0.85)。与聚维酮相比,洗必泰的导管定植率降低了(P=0.16;I=32%;RR=0.54;95%CI,0.42-0.69)。洗必泰和聚维酮的皮肤反应率没有明显差异(P=0.006;I=87%;RR=1.92;95%CI,0.55-6.72)。由于没有明确来源的 BSIs 比较的效能不足。
与聚维酮溶液相比,洗必泰溶液用于 CVC 护理可能显著降低 CRBSI 和导管定植率。洗必泰-酒精的消毒效果优于其他溶液。由于评估的研究质量相对较低,实际效果可能有所不同,因此需要更多的证据。