Chlorhexidine

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Chlorhexidine is increasingly being used not only as an antiseptic to prevent hospital infections and an adjuvant in oral hygiene but also as a preservative in personal care products. As exposure to the agent becomes more widespread, reports of adverse reactions to it are increasing. Complications range from mild irritant contact dermatitis to life-threatening anaphylaxis. Allergic contact dermatitis in some cases precedes anaphylaxis. It is imperative that physicians be aware of the many possible sources of contact with this antiseptic and be alert to recognize the potentially debilitating and catastrophic reactions that may occur because of chlorhexidine sensitization.

Related collections

Most cited references 62

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Chlorhexidine: expanding the armamentarium for infection control and prevention.

Aaron M. Milstone, Trish Perl, Catherine Passaretti (2008)

Health care-associated infections (HAIs) result in increased patient morbidity and utilization of health care resources. Rates of HAI are increasing despite advances in health care technology. Limited antimicrobial agents and a dry drug pipeline make novel prevention efforts critical. Chlorhexidine, an antiseptic solution that has been used worldwide since the 1950s, is a safe and effective product with broad antiseptic activity. Novel uses of chlorhexidine-containing products are being implemented to promote antisepsis and prevent bacterial colonization and infection. We review some of the many infection control applications of chlorhexidine in the battle against HAI, such as general skin cleansing, skin decolonization, preoperative showering and bathing, vascular catheter site preparation, impregnated catheter site dressings, impregnated catheters, and oral decontamination. As mandatory public reporting and pay for performance force infection control issues to the forefront, chlorhexidine-containing products may provide a vast armamentarium for the control and prevention of HAI.

0 comments Cited 67 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Topical application of chlorhexidine to neonatal umbilical cords for prevention of omphalitis and neonatal mortality in a rural district of Pakistan: a community-based, cluster-randomised trial.

Sajid Soofi, Simon Cousens, Aamer Imdad … (2012)

Umbilical cord infection (omphalitis) is a risk factor for neonatal sepsis and mortality in low-resource settings where home deliveries are common. We aimed to assess the effect of umbilical-cord cleansing with 4% chlorhexidine (CHX) solution, with or without handwashing with antiseptic soap, on the incidence of omphalitis and neonatal mortality. We did a two-by-two factorial, cluster-randomised trial in Dadu, a rural area of Sindh province, Pakistan. Clusters were defined as the population covered by a functional traditional birth attendant (TBA), and were randomly allocated to one of four groups (groups A to D) with a computer-generated random number sequence. Implementation and data collection teams were masked to allocation. Liveborn infants delivered by participating TBAs who received birth kits were eligible for enrolment in the study. One intervention comprised birth kits containing 4% CHX solution for application to the cord at birth by TBAs and once daily by family members for up to 14 days along with soap and educational messages promoting handwashing. One intervention was CHX solution only and another was handwashing only. Standard dry cord care was promoted in the control group. The primary outcomes were incidence of neonatal omphalitis and neonatal mortality. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00682006. 187 clusters were randomly allocated to one of the four study groups. Of 9741 newborn babies delivered by participating TBAs, factorial analysis indicated a reduction in risk of omphalitis with CHX application (risk ratio [RR]=0·58, 95% CI 0·41-0·82; p=0·002) but no evidence of an effect of handwashing (RR=0·83, 0·61-1·13; p=0·24). We recorded strong evidence of a reduction in neonatal mortality in neonates who received CHX cleansing (RR=0·62, 95 % CI 0·45-0·85; p=0·003) but no evidence of an effect of handwashing promotion on neonatal mortality (RR=1·08, 0·79-1·48; p=0·62). We recorded no serious adverse events. Application of 4% CHX to the umbilical cord was effective in reducing the risk of omphalitis and neonatal mortality in rural Pakistan. Provision of CHX in birth kits might be a useful strategy for the prevention of neonatal mortality in high-mortality settings. The United States Agency for International Development. Copyright Â© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0 comments Cited 56 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

A randomized trial comparing povidone-iodine to a chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated dressing for prevention of central venous catheter infections in neonates.

C Shivpuri, J Pellegrini, Isabel T. McAuliffe … (2001)

Neonates who require a central venous catheter (CVC) for prolonged vascular access experience high rates of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI). A multicenter randomized clinical trial was undertaken to ascertain the efficacy of a novel chlorhexidine-impregnated dressing (Biopatch Antimicrobial Dressing) on the CVC sites of neonates for the prevention of catheter tip colonization, CRBSI, and bloodstream infection (BSI) without a source. Setting. Six level III neonatal intensive care units. Patients Studied. Neonates admitted to study units who would require a CVC for at least 48 hours. Eligible infants were randomized before catheter placement to 1 of the 2 catheter site antisepsis regimens: 1) 10% povidone-iodine (PI) skin scrub, or 2) a 70% alcohol scrub followed by placement of a chlorhexidine-impregnated disk over the catheter insertion site. A transparent polyurethane dressing (Bioclusive Transparent Dressing) was used to cover the insertion site in both study groups. Primary study outcomes evaluated were catheter tip colonization, CRBSI, and BSI without an identified source. Seven hundred five neonates were enrolled in the trial, 335 randomized to receive the chlorhexidine dressing and 370 to skin disinfection with PI (controls). Neonates randomized to the antimicrobial dressing group were less likely to have colonized CVC tips than control neonates (15.0% vs 24.0%, relative risk [RR]: 0.6 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.5-0.9). Rates of CRBSI (3.8% vs 3.2%, RR: 1.2, CI: 0.5-2.7) and BSI without a source (15.2% vs 14.3%, RR: 1.1, CI: 0.8-1.5) did not differ between the 2 groups. Localized contact dermatitis from the antimicrobial dressing, requiring crossover into the PI treatment group, occurred in 15 (15.3%) of 98 exposed neonates weighing