Objective The skin disinfectant ‘0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% alcohol’ (0.5% CHG-70% alc) may cause skin lesions in extremely preterm infants (gestational age <26 weeks). In April 2013, 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate solution in acetate (0.2% CHG-acetate) was introduced as skin disinfectant for extremely preterm infants in our neonatal intensive care units. We aimed to compare the incidence of skin lesions and central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) among extremely preterm infants when using 0.5% CHG-70% alc and 0.2% CHG-acetate.
Design Retrospective pre-post comparison cohort study.
Patients All electronic patient records of extremely preterm infants born between January 2011–March 2013 (‘0.5% CHG-70% alc’ cohort) and April 2013–October 2015 (‘0.2% CHG-acetate’ cohort) were reviewed.
Main outcome measures The incidence of skin lesions and CLABSI. Skin lesions were defined as the presence of erythema, blisters, excoriation, oedema or induration. CLABSI was defined according to the definition of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Results The incidence of skin lesions was 22% (95% CI 11% to 37%) in the ‘0.5% CHG-70% alc’ cohort (n=41) and 5% (95% CI 1% to 15%; p=0.02) in the ‘0.2% CHG-acetate’ cohort (n=41). The incidence of CLABSI was the same in both groups (28%; 95% CI 14% to 46% in ‘0.5% CHG-70% alc’ vs 27%; 95% CI 14% to 44% in ‘0.2% CHG-acetate’; p=0.98).
Conclusions Using 0.2% CHG-acetate as skin disinfectant in extremely preterm infants resulted in statistically significant reduction of skin lesions, without increasing the risk of CLABSI as compared with 0.5% CHG-70% alc.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors LMAJ conceptualised and designed the study, acquired data, carried out the initial analyses and drafted the initial manuscript.
AT reviewed and revised the manuscript, carried out statistical analyses and approved the final manuscript as submitted.
JH designed the study, critically reviewed the manuscript and approved the final manuscript as submitted.
KDL conceptualised and designed the study, coordinated and supervised all data
collection, critically reviewed and revised the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.