TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of the efficacy of three topical antiseptic solutions for the prevention of catheter colonization
T2 - A multicenter randomized controlled study
AU - Japanese Society of Education for Physicians and Trainees in Intensive Care (JSEPTIC) Clinical Trial Group
AU - Yasuda, Hideto
AU - Sanui, Masamitsu
AU - Abe, Takayuki
AU - Shime, Nobuaki
AU - Komuro, Tetsuya
AU - Hatakeyama, Junji
AU - Matsukubo, Shohei
AU - Kawano, Shinji
AU - Yamamoto, Hiroshi
AU - Andoh, Kohkichi
AU - Seo, Ryutaro
AU - Inoue, Kyo
AU - Noda, Eiichiro
AU - Saito, Nobuyuki
AU - Nogami, Satoshi
AU - Okamoto, Kentaro
AU - Fuke, Ryota
AU - Gushima, Yasuhiro
AU - Kobayashi, Atsuko
AU - Takebayashi, Toru
AU - Lefor, Alan Kawarai
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was supported by Maruishi Pharmaceutical and Yoshida Pharmaceutical Company. The sponsor and funder had no input in the development of the research or the manuscript, including the data collection, the analysis, the interpretation of data and the writing of the manuscript.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 The Author(s).
PY - 2017/12/21
Y1 - 2017/12/21
N2 - Background: To compare the efficacy of three antiseptic solutions [0.5%, and 1.0% alcohol/chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG), and 10% aqueous povidone-iodine (PVI)] for the prevention of intravascular catheter colonization, we conducted a randomized controlled trial in patients from 16 intensive care units in Japan. Methods: Adult patients undergoing central venous or arterial catheter insertions were randomized to have one of three antiseptic solutions applied during catheter insertion and dressing changes. The primary endpoint was the incidence of catheter colonization, and the secondary endpoint was the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI). Results: Of 1132 catheters randomized, 796 (70%) were included in the full analysis set. Catheter-tip colonization incidence was 3.7, 3.9, and 10.5 events per 1000 catheter-days in 0.5% CHG, 1% CHG, and PVI groups, respectively (p = 0.03). Pairwise comparisons of catheter colonization between groups showed a significantly higher catheter colonization risk in the PVI group (0.5% CHG vs. PVI: hazard ratio, HR 0.33 [95% confidence interval, CI 0.12-0.95], p = 0.04; 1.0% CHG vs. PVI: HR 0.35 [95% CI 0.13-0.93], p = 0.04). Sensitivity analyses including all patients by multiple imputations showed consistent quantitative conclusions (0.5% CHG vs. PVI: HR 0.34, p = 0.03; 1.0% CHG vs. PVI: HR 0.35, p = 0.04). No significant differences were observed in the incidence of CRBSI between groups. Conclusions: Both 0.5% and 1.0% alcohol CHG are superior to 10% aqueous PVI for the prevention of intravascular catheter colonization. Trial registration: Japanese Primary Registries Network; No.:
AB - Background: To compare the efficacy of three antiseptic solutions [0.5%, and 1.0% alcohol/chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG), and 10% aqueous povidone-iodine (PVI)] for the prevention of intravascular catheter colonization, we conducted a randomized controlled trial in patients from 16 intensive care units in Japan. Methods: Adult patients undergoing central venous or arterial catheter insertions were randomized to have one of three antiseptic solutions applied during catheter insertion and dressing changes. The primary endpoint was the incidence of catheter colonization, and the secondary endpoint was the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI). Results: Of 1132 catheters randomized, 796 (70%) were included in the full analysis set. Catheter-tip colonization incidence was 3.7, 3.9, and 10.5 events per 1000 catheter-days in 0.5% CHG, 1% CHG, and PVI groups, respectively (p = 0.03). Pairwise comparisons of catheter colonization between groups showed a significantly higher catheter colonization risk in the PVI group (0.5% CHG vs. PVI: hazard ratio, HR 0.33 [95% confidence interval, CI 0.12-0.95], p = 0.04; 1.0% CHG vs. PVI: HR 0.35 [95% CI 0.13-0.93], p = 0.04). Sensitivity analyses including all patients by multiple imputations showed consistent quantitative conclusions (0.5% CHG vs. PVI: HR 0.34, p = 0.03; 1.0% CHG vs. PVI: HR 0.35, p = 0.04). No significant differences were observed in the incidence of CRBSI between groups. Conclusions: Both 0.5% and 1.0% alcohol CHG are superior to 10% aqueous PVI for the prevention of intravascular catheter colonization. Trial registration: Japanese Primary Registries Network; No.:
KW - Anti-bacterial agents
KW - Anti-infective agents
KW - Catheter-related infections
KW - Catheters
KW - Chlorhexidine
KW - Local
KW - Povidone-iodine
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85038959803&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85038959803&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s13054-017-1890-z
DO - 10.1186/s13054-017-1890-z
M3 - Article
C2 - 29268759
AN - SCOPUS:85038959803
SN - 1364-8535
VL - 21
JO - Critical Care
JF - Critical Care
IS - 1
M1 - 320
ER -