We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Chlorhexidine compared with povidone-iodine solution for vascular catheter-site care: a meta-analysis.
Annals of Internal Medicine 2002 June 5
PURPOSE: Bloodstream infections related to use of catheters, particularly central-line catheters, are an important cause of patient morbidity, mortality, and increased health care costs. This study evaluated the efficacy of skin disinfection with chlorhexidine gluconate compared with povidone-iodine solution in preventing catheter-related bloodstream infection.
DATA SOURCES: Multiple computerized databases (1966 to 2001), reference lists of identified articles, and queries of principal investigators and antiseptic manufacturers.
STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials comparing chlorhexidine gluconate with povidone-iodine solutions for catheter-site care.
DATA EXTRACTION: Using a standardized form, two reviewers abstracted data on study design, patient population, intervention, and incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infection from all included studies.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Eight studies involving a total of 4143 catheters met the inclusion criteria. All studies were conducted in a hospital setting, and various catheter types were used. The summary risk ratio for catheter-related bloodstream infection was 0.49 (95% CI, 0.28 to 0.88) in patients whose catheter sites were disinfected with chlorhexidine gluconate instead of povidone-iodine. Among patients with a central vascular catheter, chlorhexidine gluconate reduced the risk for catheter-related bloodstream infection by 49% (risk ratio, 0.51 [CI, 0.27 to 0.97]).
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that incidence of bloodstream infections is significantly reduced in patients with central vascular lines who receive chlorhexidine gluconate versus povidone-iodine for insertion-site skin disinfection. Use of chlorhexidine gluconate is a simple and effective means of reducing vascular catheter-related infections.
DATA SOURCES: Multiple computerized databases (1966 to 2001), reference lists of identified articles, and queries of principal investigators and antiseptic manufacturers.
STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials comparing chlorhexidine gluconate with povidone-iodine solutions for catheter-site care.
DATA EXTRACTION: Using a standardized form, two reviewers abstracted data on study design, patient population, intervention, and incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infection from all included studies.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Eight studies involving a total of 4143 catheters met the inclusion criteria. All studies were conducted in a hospital setting, and various catheter types were used. The summary risk ratio for catheter-related bloodstream infection was 0.49 (95% CI, 0.28 to 0.88) in patients whose catheter sites were disinfected with chlorhexidine gluconate instead of povidone-iodine. Among patients with a central vascular catheter, chlorhexidine gluconate reduced the risk for catheter-related bloodstream infection by 49% (risk ratio, 0.51 [CI, 0.27 to 0.97]).
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that incidence of bloodstream infections is significantly reduced in patients with central vascular lines who receive chlorhexidine gluconate versus povidone-iodine for insertion-site skin disinfection. Use of chlorhexidine gluconate is a simple and effective means of reducing vascular catheter-related infections.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app