Mimoz O, Pieroni L, Lawrence C, Edouard A, Costa Y, Samii K, Brun-Buisson C
Service d'Anesthésie-Réanimation, Université de Paris Sud, Hôpital Bicêtre, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France.
Crit Care Med. 1996 Nov;24(11):1818-23. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199611000-00010.
To compare the efficacy of a newly available antiseptic solution (composed of 0.25% chlorhexidine gluconate, 0.025% benzalkonium chloride, and 4% benzyl alcohol), with 10% povidone iodine, on the prevention of central venous or arterial catheter colonization and infection.
Prospective, randomized clinical trial.
Surgical-trauma intensive care unit (ICU) in a university hospital.
All patients admitted to the ICU and requiring the insertion of a central venous and/or an arterial catheter from July 1, 1992 to October 31, 1993.
Patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups according to the antiseptic solution used for insertion and catheter care. The same solution was used for skin disinfection from the time of catheter insertion to the time of removal of each catheter.
Catheter distal tips were quantitatively cultured when catheters were no longer necessary, if there was a suspicion of catheter-related infection, and routinely after 7 days of use for arterial catheters, or after 15 days of use for central venous catheters. The rate of significant catheter colonization (i.e., > or = 10(3) colony-forming units [cfu]/mL by quantitative culture), and catheter-related sepsis (as defined by sepsis abating following catheter removal per 1,000 catheter-days), were significantly lower in the chlorhexidine group (12 vs. 31 [relative risk 0.4, 95% confidence interval 0.1 to 0.9, p < .01] and 6 vs. 16 [relative risk 0.4, 95% confidence interval 0.1 to 1, p = 0.5], respectively). The rate of central venous catheter colonization and central venous catheter-related sepsis per 1,000 catheter-days were also significantly lower in the chlorhexidine group (8 vs. 31 [relative risk 0.3, 95% confidence interval 0.1 to 1, p = .03] and 5 vs. 19 [relative risk 0.3, 95% confidence interval 0.1 to 1, p = .02], respectively). Finally, the rate of arterial catheter colonization per 1,000 catheter-days was significantly lower in the chlorhexidine group (15 vs. 32 [relative risk 0.5, 95% confidence interval 0.1 to 1, p = .05]), whereas the rate of arterial catheter-related sepsis per 1,000 catheter-days was similar for the two study groups (8 in the chlorhexidine group vs. 10 in the povidone iodine group [relative risk 0.8, 95% confidence interval 0.1 to 2.2, p = .6]). The 0.25% chlorhexidine solution was superior to the 10% povidone iodine solution in preventing catheter colonizations and catheter-related sepsis due to Gram-positive bacteria (5 vs. 20 [p < .001], and 2 vs. 10 [p < .001], respectively), whereas the activity of the 0.25% chlorhexidine solution was nonsignificantly superior in preventing Gram-negative infections (7 vs. 4 [p = .5], and 4 vs. 2 [p = .8], respectively).
The 4% alcohol-based solution of 0.25% chlorhexidine gluconate and 0.025% benzalkonium chloride was more effective than 10% povidone iodine for insertion site care of short-term central venous and arterial catheters. This effect appeared related to a more efficacious prevention of infections with Gram-positive bacteria.
比较一种新的防腐溶液(由0.25%葡萄糖酸氯己定、0.025%苯扎氯铵和4%苯甲醇组成)与10%聚维酮碘在预防中心静脉或动脉导管定植和感染方面的疗效。
前瞻性随机临床试验。
大学医院的外科创伤重症监护病房(ICU)。
1992年7月1日至1993年10月31日期间入住ICU且需要插入中心静脉和/或动脉导管的所有患者。
根据用于导管插入和护理的防腐溶液,将患者随机分为两组。从导管插入到每个导管拔除期间,使用相同的溶液进行皮肤消毒。
当导管不再需要时、怀疑有导管相关感染时以及动脉导管使用7天后或中心静脉导管使用15天后,对导管远端尖端进行定量培养。氯己定组的显著导管定植率(即定量培养菌落形成单位[cfu]≥10³/mL)和导管相关败血症发生率(根据每1000个导管日拔除导管后败血症缓解情况定义)显著更低(分别为12例对31例[相对风险0.4,95%置信区间0.1至0.9,p<0.01]和6例对16例[相对风险0.4,95%置信区间0.1至1,p = 0.5])。氯己定组每1000个导管日的中心静脉导管定植率和中心静脉导管相关败血症发生率也显著更低(分别为8例对31例[相对风险0.3,95%置信区间0.1至1,p = 0.03]和5例对19例[相对风险0.3,95%置信区间0.1至1,p = 0.02])。最后,氯己定组每1000个导管日的动脉导管定植率显著更低(15例对32例[相对风险0.5,95%置信区间0.1至1,p = 0.05]),而两组每1000个导管日的动脉导管相关败血症发生率相似(氯己定组8例对聚维酮碘组10例[相对风险0.8,95%置信区间0.1至2.2,p = 0.6])。0.25%氯己定溶液在预防革兰氏阳性菌引起的导管定植和导管相关败血症方面优于10%聚维酮碘溶液(分别为5例对20例[p<0.001]和2例对10例[p<0.001]),而0.25%氯己定溶液在预防革兰氏阴性菌感染方面的活性虽有优势但无统计学意义(分别为7例对4例[p = 0.5]和4例对2例[p = 0.8])。
含4%酒精的0.25%葡萄糖酸氯己定和0.025%苯扎氯铵溶液在短期中心静脉和动脉导管插入部位护理方面比10%聚维酮碘更有效。这种效果似乎与更有效地预防革兰氏阳性菌感染有关。