The impact of chlorhexidine bathing on hospital-acquired bloodstream infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) bathing of hospitalized patients may have benefit in reducing hospital-acquired bloodstream infections (HABSIs). However, the magnitude of effect, implementation fidelity, and patient-centered outcomes are unclear. In this meta-analysis, we examined the effect of CHG bathing on prevention of HABSIs and assessed fidelity to implementation of this behavioral intervention. Methods We undertook a meta-analysis by searching Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane’s CENTRAL registry from database inception through January 4, 2019 without language restrictions. We included randomized controlled trials, cluster randomized trials and quasi-experimental studies that evaluated the effect of CHG bathing versus a non-CHG comparator for prevention of HABSIs in any adult healthcare setting. Studies of pediatric patients, of pre-surgical CHG use, or without a non-CHG comparison arm were excluded. Outcomes of this study were HABSIs, patient-centered outcomes, such as patient comfort during the bath, and implementation fidelity assessed through five elements: adherence, exposure or dose, quality of the delivery, participant responsiveness, and program differentiation. Three authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality; a random-effects model was used. Results We included 26 studies with 861,546 patient-days and 5259 HABSIs. CHG bathing markedly reduced the risk of HABSIs (IRR = 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52–0.68). The effect of CHG bathing was consistent within subgroups: randomized (0.67, 95% CI: 0.53–0.85) vs. non-randomized studies (0.54, 95% CI: 0.44–0.65), bundled (0.66, 95% CI: 0.62–0.70) vs. non-bundled interventions (0.51, 95% CI: 0.39–0.68), CHG impregnated wipes (0.63, 95% CI: 0.55–0.73) vs. CHG solution (0.41, 95% CI: 0.26–0.64), and intensive care unit (ICU) (0.58, 95% CI: 0.49–0.68) vs. non-ICU settings (0.56, 95% CI: 0.38–0.83). Only three studies reported all five measures of fidelity, and ten studies did not report any patient-centered outcomes. Conclusions Patient bathing with CHG significantly reduced the incidence of HABSIs in both ICU and non-ICU settings. Many studies did not report fidelity to the intervention or patient-centered outcomes. For sustainability and replicability essential for effective implementation, fidelity assessment that goes beyond whether a patient received an intervention or not should be standard practice particularly for complex behavioral interventions such as CHG bathing. Trial registration Study registration with PROSPERO CRD42015032523 . Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12879-019-4002-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Disinfectant Activity of A Portable Ultraviolet C Equipment

“…To avoid this microbial colonization and persistence on both fomites and hard surfaces, routine chemical and physical decontamination approaches have been introduced [4]. Ethanol and other alcohols, and biguanides like chlorhexidine, are widely used in hospitals and laboratories to disinfect surfaces and to prevent nosocomial infections [11,12]. However, not all the above-mentioned objects can be treated with chemical biocides due to possible deterioration of the material or the electronics [13,14].…”

Central‐line‐associated bloodstream infections in a surgical paediatric intensive care unit: Risk factors and prevention with chlorhexidine bathing

“…In addition, the literature review did not show the superiority of one formulation over the other in 2014, when the cutaneous decontamination protocol was written . Since then, a meta‐analysis published in 2019 seems to show a superiority of CHG4% compared to CHG2% for the prevention of HAIs …”

Prevalence of recessive infection of pathogens of hand, foot, and mouth disease in healthy people in China

“…The point assessment of the recessive infection rate and the 95% confidence interval of each study were combined for the pooled rates, and the DerSimonian and Laird method (D–L method) of random effect model or the Mantel–Haenszel method (M–H method) of fixed effect model was selected according to the heterogeneity. [ 9 ] Cohran's Q test was used for qualitative evaluation of the heterogeneity. If P < .1 for Cohran's Q test, heterogeneity was indicated and random effect model was used for meta-analysis.…”

“…The heterogeneity was quantified by I 2 test, and those with I 2 values of 0% to 25%, 26% to 50%, and 51% to 100% were considered as low, medium, and high heterogeneity, respectively. [ 9 ]…”