Download PDF
J Pediatr Infect Dis 2023; 18(03): 116-126
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1764479
Review Article

Effectiveness of Chlorhexidine-Impregnated Central Venous Catheter Dressing for Preventing Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections in Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Study

Ebru Melek Benligül 
1   Division of Pediatric Nursing, Department of Nursing, Izmir Tinaztepe University Faculty of Health Sciences, İzmir, Türkiye
,
Murat Bektaş 
2   Department of Pediatric Nursing, Dokuz Eylul University Faculty of Nursing, İzmir, Türkiye
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The study's objective was to use meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of a dressing impregnated with chlorhexidine in preventing catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) in pediatric patients.

Methods The study was conducted and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. A comprehensive search of 18 databases was conducted up to 5 March 2020 to identify related studies. Following the evaluation of the methodological quality, 8 studies, 1,584 catheters in 1,556 patients were added to the meta-analysis. The odds ratio and Hedge's G effect size value were employed to analyze the data. Either a fixed-effects model or a random-effects model was used to compute the effect size value with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The heterogeneity of effect sizes was investigated using Cochrane Q statistics, I 2, and Tau2 tests. To test for publication bias, funnel plot, Orwin's safe n number, Begg and Mazumdar rank correlation, Egger test, and Duval and Tweedie's trim and fill procedures were all utilized.

Results The catheter colonization risk was lowered by 50.7% by the chlorhexidine-impregnated (C-I) dressing (odds ratio [OR] = 0.493 [%95 CI: 0.360–0.675]; p < 0.001). The use of C-I dressing was associated with a trend toward a decrease in CRBSIs, while this association was not statistically significant (OR = 0.858 [%95 CI: 0.567–1.300]; p = 0.471).

Conclusion The use of C-I dressing can effectively reduce the risk of catheter colonization, and it is also a helpful tactic in lowering CRBSIs in pediatric patients with central venous catheters, according to the findings of this meta-analysis.

Keywords

dressing - central venous catheter - catheter-related infections - chlorhexidine


Publication History

Received: 04 October 2022

Accepted: 22 December 2022

Article published online:
30 March 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Rabelo BS, de Alvarenga KAF, Miranda JWFB. et al. Risk factors for catheter-related infection in children with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Infect Control 2023; 51 (01) 99-106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kochanowicz JF, Nowicka A, Al-Saad SR, Karbowski LM, Gadzinowski J, Szpecht D. Catheter-related bloodstream infections in infants hospitalized in neonatal intensive care units: a single center study. Sci Rep 2022; 12 (01) 13679
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Aslan N, Yıldızdaş D, Menemencioğlu A. et al. Comparison of standard dressing and chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated dressing for the prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infection in our pediatric intensive care unit. J Pediatr Emerg Intensive Care Med 2020; 7: 24-29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bierlaire S, Danhaive O, Carkeek K, Piersigilli F. How to minimize central line-associated bloodstream infections in a neonatal intensive care unit: a quality improvement intervention based on a retrospective analysis and the adoption of an evidence-based bundle. Eur J Pediatr 2021; 180 (02) 449-460
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Lai NM, Taylor JE, Tan K, Choo YM, Ahmad Kamar A, Muhamad NA. Antimicrobial dressings for the prevention of catheter-related infections in newborn infants with central venous catheters. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 3 (03) CD011082
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 İşgüder R, Devrim İ, Ceylan G, Kara A, Gülfidan G, Ağın H. Risk factors for recurrent central line-associated bloodstream infections in a pediatric intensive care unit. Turk J Med Sci 2017; 47 (04) 1128-1136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Myatra SN. Improving hand hygiene practices to reduce CLABSI rates: nurses education integral for success. Indian J Crit Care Med 2019; 23 (07) 291-293
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Whalen A, Mack EH. Prevention of central line-associated bloodstream infections in children: current challenges and opportunities. Curr Treat Options Pediatr 2020; 6 (03) 203-213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Martinez T, Baugnon T, Vergnaud E. et al. Central-line-associated bloodstream infections in a surgical paediatric intensive care unit: risk factors and prevention with chlorhexidine bathing. J Paediatr Child Health 2020; 56 (06) 936-942
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Benligül EM, Bektaş M, Arslan G. Current approach to prevention of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infections in children. J Pediatr Emerg Intensive Care Med 2021; 8: 67-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Arpa Y, Aygün H, Yalçınbaş Y, San D. Comparison of catheter related infection rates in pediatric cardiovascular surgery patients with use of transparent cover and transparent cover saturated with chlorhexidine gluconate in central catheter care. Journal of Research and Development in Nursing 2013; 15 (02) 57-67
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Turkish Association of Hospital Infections and Control. National Vascular Access Management Guide 2019. J Hosp Infect 2019; 23 (Suppl. 01) 1-54
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Gorski LA, Hadaway L, Hagle ME. et al. Infusion Therapy Standards of Practice, 8th Edition. J Infus Nurs 2021; 44 (1S, Suppl 1): S1-S224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 O'Grady NP, Alexander M, Burns LA. et al; Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 52 (09) e162-e193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Beekman K, Steward D. Chlorhexidine gluconate utilization for infection prevention in the NICU: a survey of current practice. Adv Neonatal Care 2020; 20 (01) 38-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Wei L, Li Y, Li X, Bian L, Wen Z, Li M. Chlorhexidine-impregnated dressing for the prophylaxis of central venous catheter-related complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Infect Dis 2019; 19 (01) 429
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2017 Recommendations on use of chlorhexidine-impregnated dressings for prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections: An update to the 2011 guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Division of Healthcare Quality and Promotion. Accessed August 30, 2022 at: https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/pdf/guidelines/c-i-dressings-H.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Apfelbaum JL, Rupp SM, Tung A. et al. Practice guidelines for central venous access 2020: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Central Venous Access. Anesthesiology 2020; 132 (01) 8-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ling ML, Apisarnthanarak A, Jaggi N. et al. APSIC guide for prevention of Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infections (CLABSI). Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2016; 5 (01) 16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Marschall J, Mermel LA, Fakih M. et al; Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Strategies to prevent central line-associated bloodstream infections in acute care hospitals: 2014 update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014; 35 (07) 753-771
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Huang EY, Chen C, Abdullah F. et al; 2011 American Pediatric Surgical Association Outcomes and Clinical Trials Committee. Strategies for the prevention of central venous catheter infections: an American Pediatric Surgical Association Outcomes and Clinical Trials Committee systematic review. J Pediatr Surg 2011; 46 (10) 2000-2011
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372 (71) n71
    Google Scholar
  • 23 The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools. Accessed 06 March 2022 at: https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools
    PubMed
  • 24 Nahcivan N, Seçginli S. How are the methodological quality of quantitative studies included in systematic review?. Turkiye Klinikleri J Public Health Nurs-Special Topics 2017; 3 (01) 10-19
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Dinçer S. Applied meta-analysis in educational sciences. First edition,. Ankara: Pegem Akademi; 2014
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Akoğlu H. . Odds oranı, rölatif risk, NNT ve NNH. Accessed September 27, 2020 at; https://www.aciltipakademisi.org/odds-orani-rolatif-risk-nnt-ve-nnh/
    PubMed
  • 27 Kılıçkap M. [How to interpret meta-analyses: a recipe for interpretation of the methodology used in the meta-analyses conducted on cardiovascular risk factors in Türkiye]. Turk Kardiyol Dern Ars 2018; 46 (07) 624-635
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Çarkungöz E, Ediz B. Meta analysis. Uludag Univ. J. Fac. Vet. Med. 2009; 28 (01) 33-37
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Şen S, Akbaş N. A study on multilevel meta-analysis methods. J Measure Evaluat Educ Psychol 2016; 7 (01) 1-17
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Gedik A, Üstüner M. The relationship between organizational commitment and job satisfaction in educational organizations: a meta-analysis study. E-Int J Educat Res 2017; 8 (02) 41-57
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Bakioğlu A, Göktaş E. A method of determining an education policy: meta-analysis. J Civil Educat Res 2018; 1 (02) 35-54
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Kansızoğlu HB, Sulak SE. The effect of student-centered grammar teaching practices on student achievement: a meta-analysis study. J Hacettepe Univ Faculty Educat 2019; 34 (04) 958-980
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Jitrungruengnij N, Anugulruengkitt S, Rattananupong T. et al. Efficacy of chlorhexidine patches on central line-associated bloodstream infections in children. Pediatr Int 2020; 62 (07) 789-796
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Ergul AB, Gokcek I, Ozcan A, Cetin S, Gultekin N, Torun YA. Use of a chlorhexidine-impregnated dressing reduced catheter-related bloodstream infections caused by Gram-positive microorganisms. Pak J Med Sci 2018; 34 (02) 347-351
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Gerçeker GÖ, Yardımcı F, Aydınok Y. Randomized controlled trial of care bundles with chlorhexidine dressing and advanced dressings to prevent catheter-related bloodstream infections in pediatric hematology-oncology patients. Eur J Oncol Nurs 2017; 28: 14-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Düzkaya DS, Şahiner NC, Uysal G, Yakut T, Çitak A. Chlorhexidine-impregnated dressings and prevention of catheter-associated bloodstream infections in a pediatric intensive care unit. Crit Care Nurse 2016; 36 (06) e1-e7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Levy I, Katz J, Solter E. et al. Chlorhexidine-impregnated dressing for prevention of colonization of central venous catheters in infants and children: a randomized controlled study. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2005; 24 (08) 676-679
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Garland JS, Alex CP, Mueller CD. et al. A randomized trial comparing povidone-iodine to a chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated dressing for prevention of central venous catheter infections in neonates. Pediatrics 2001; 107 (06) 1431-1436
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Margatho AS, Ciol MA, Hoffman JM. et al. Chlorhexidine-impregnated gel dressing compared with transparent polyurethane dressing in the prevention of catheter-related infections in critically ill adult patients: a pilot randomised controlled trial. Aust Crit Care 2019; 32 (06) 471-478
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Safdar N, O'Horo JC, Ghufran A. et al. Chlorhexidine-impregnated dressing for prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infection: a meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 2014; 42 (07) 1703-1713
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Wang HX, Xie SY, Wang H, Chu HK. The effects of chlorhexidine dressing on health care-associated infection in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis. Iran J Public Health 2019; 48 (05) 796-807
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Koeppen M, Weinert F, Oehlschlaeger S, Koerner A, Rosenberger P, Haeberle HA. Needle-free connectors catheter-related bloodstream infections: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Intensive Care Med Exp 2019; 7 (01) 63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Loveday HP, Wilson JA, Pratt RJ. et al; UK Department of Health. epic3: national evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections in NHS hospitals in England. J Hosp Infect 2014; 86 (Suppl. 01) S1-S70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Devinck A, Bauters T, Lapeere H, Willems L. Anaphylaxis related to disinfection with chlorhexidine in a teenager treated for cancer. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2021; 27 (01) 227-231
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Jenks M, Craig J, Green W, Hewitt N, Arber M, Sims A. Tegaderm CHG IV securement dressing for central venous and arterial catheter insertion sites: a NICE Medical Technology Guidance. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2016; 14 (02) 135-149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Kikuchi M, Sato T, Okada S, Abe N, Sato A, Suzuki Y. Maintenance antisepsis in reducing the rate of late-onset central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection: a comparison of 0.05% and 1% chlorhexidine. J Infect Chemother 2020; 26 (02) 188-193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar