Skip to main content

Chlorhexidine still has skin in the game

To the editor:

We read with great interest the recent study by Buetti et al. that described similar infection risk of short-term central venous or arterial catheters covered with either chlorhexidine (CHG) gel or sponge dressings [1]. It was additionally concluded that concomitant use of CHG for skin antisepsis may significantly increase contact dermatitis. In this investigation, contact dermatitis was subjectively reported by nurses when there were any findings beyond “normal skin” including “mild redness only” during dressing changes and line removal. This methodology is simple, but it requires adequate training for the results to be correctly interpreted and used [2].

Despite this, we still favor CHG over povidone-iodine antisepsis, as multiple trials collectively reveal significant reduction in catheter-related blood stream infections by up to 50% [3]. Although severe contact dermatitis may theoretically increase the risk of major catheter-related infection due to skin breakdown, concern for this complication should not preclude use of CHG dressings. In a case series of seven patients with erosive irritant contact dermatitis due to CHG-containing dressings, simply switching to an alternative antimicrobial dressing led to resolution of the lesions. Most notably, extensive infectious workup for the included patients was negative [4]. Alternative options for CHG-sensitive individuals may include topical antibiotics, silicone and silver-impregnated dressings, and cleansing with alcohol and povidone-iodine.

Many potential materials for central lines and their dressings remain unstudied. Although chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine-impregnated catheters have been investigated, these interventions have not been found to significantly reduce catheter-related bloodstream infections compared to standard catheters [5]. However, trials seeking statistically significant conclusions regarding major catheter-related infections must compose a very large sample size due to the small number of events that occur with the current standard of care.

With this in mind, we thoroughly appreciate the high-quality analysis of 3700 catheters with CHG-impregnated dressings set forth by Buetti and colleagues.

Authors’ response: Alcoholic 2% chlorhexidine for skin disinfection should be used

To the editor,

We read with great interest the letter by Lackey et al. and their statement on chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) skin disinfection and CHG-impregnated dressings [6].

The aim of our study was to perform a comparison between CHG-impregnated sponge-dressing and CHG-gel-dressing [1]. A supplementary analysis showed that concomitant use of CHG for skin antisepsis and CHG-impregnated dressing may increase contact dermatitis among CHG-gel-dressings. We agree with Lackey et al. that the outcome ICDRC ≥ 1 should interpreted with caution. Therefore, we performed a sensitivity analysis using as outcome an ICDRC ≥ 2 (i.e., “red and slightly thickened skin”). This sensitivity analysis confirmed the results of the main analysis using as outcome an ICDRC ≥ 1 [1]. Moreover, we performed a supplementary analysis for addressing this question using the ordinal variable “ICDRC”: we used mixed effects ordinal logistic regression models for clustered data (PROC GENMOD of SAS) with the response variable ICDRC, and we adjusted for the time between catheter insertion and dressing change and the ICU. The odds ratio for the increase by one ICDRC degree at each dressing change was 4.71 (95% CI 2.12–10.46, p < 0.001) for Gel-dress (versus Sponge-dress). Therefore, our results were confirmed taking into account all ICDRC degrees of contact dermatitis.

We completely agree with Lackey et al. regarding CHG skin disinfection. The most recent meta-analysis on this topic showed that CHG skin disinfection reduced catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI) although the evidence was low grade [7]. These findings were confirmed by the CLEAN trial that illustrated the superiority of alcoholic 2% CHG (versus alcoholic 5% povidone iodine) in CRBSI prevention [8]. We are, therefore, convinced that alcoholic 2% CHG should be used for skin antisepsis prior to any intravascular catheter insertion in the ICU [9]. However, the additional benefit in CRBSI prevention of CHG-impregnated dressings after skin antisepsis with alcoholic CHG 2% remains unknown [9]. In our opinion, the use of CHG-impregnated dressings should be considered only in ICUs having infection rates above the institutional goals [9]. Moreover, in our analysis, only alcoholic ≤ 0.5% CHG was used: the frequency and impact of contact dermatitis using concomitantly 2% CHG for skin disinfection and CHG-impregnated dressings remain an unresolved issue.

Availability of data and materials

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

  1. 1.

    Buetti N, Ruckly S, Schwebel C, et al. Chlorhexidine-impregnated sponge versus chlorhexidine gel dressing for short-term intravascular catheters: which one is better? Crit Care. 2020;24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-03174-0.

  2. 2.

    Lazzarini R, Duarte I, Ferreira AL. Patch tests. An Bras Dermatol. 2013;88(6):879–88. https://doi.org/10.1590/abd1806-4841.20132323.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Chaiyakunapruk N, Veenstra DL, Lipsky BA, Saint S. Chlorhexidine compared with povidone-iodine solution for vascular catheter-site care: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136(11):792–801. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-136-11-200206040-00007.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Weitz NA, Lauren CT, Weiser JA, et al. Chlorhexidine gluconate–impregnated central access catheter dressings as a cause of erosive contact dermatitis: a report of 7 cases. JAMA Dermatol. 2013;149(2):195–9. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2013.903.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Rupp ME, Lisco SJ, Lipsett PA, et al. Effect of a second-generation venous catheter impregnated with chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine on central catheter-related infections: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2005;143(8):570–80. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-143-8-200510180-00007.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Lackey A, Kalivoda B, Parikh A. Chlorhexidine still has skin in the game. Crit Care: Accepted Sept 2020. 2020.

  7. 7.

    Lai NM, Lai NA, O'Riordan E, Chaiyakunapruk N, Taylor JE, Tan K. Skin antisepsis for reducing central venous catheter-related infections. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;7:CD010140.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Mimoz O, Lucet JC, Kerforne T, Pascal J, Souweine B, Goudet V, et al. Skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine-alcohol versus povidone iodine-alcohol, with and without skin scrubbing, for prevention of intravascular-catheter-related infection (CLEAN): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, two-by-two factorial trial. Lancet. 2015;386(10008):2069–77.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Buetti N, Tabah A, Timsit JF, Zingg W. What is new in catheter use and catheter infection prevention in the ICU. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2020;26(5):459–65. https://doi.org/10.1097/MCC.0000000000000754.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

Funding

There are no sources of funding.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

AL wrote the preliminary letter to the editor after reviewing the original article with BK and AP. BK and AP edited and contributed additional commentary to the final draft. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandra Lackey.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lackey, A., Kalivoda, B. & Parikh, A. Chlorhexidine still has skin in the game. Crit Care 24, 563 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-03279-6

Download citation