Aqueous chlorhexidine 1% versus 2% for neonatal skin antisepsis: a randomised non-inferiority trial

Objective To evaluate whether 1% aqueous chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) when compared with 2% aqueous chlorhexidine gluconate is non-inferior for neonatal skin antisepsis. Design Parallel, blinded, non-inferiority randomised trial. Setting Level III, academic, neonatal intensive care unit. Patients Infants born at 260/7 to 426/7 weeks of gestation from June 2019 to December 2019. Interventions Participants were randomised to skin antisepsis by either 1% aqueous CHG or 2% aqueous CHG. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the proportion of negative skin swab cultures after skin antisepsis. Secondary outcomes were local skin reactions at 0, 6, 12 and 24 hours and plasma chlorhexidine levels in a subset of the study population. Results A total of 308 neonates with a median gestation age of 34 (31–37) weeks and mean birth weight of 2029 g were randomised on 685 occasions (1% CHG: n=341; 2% CHG: n=344). 93.0% of the post-antisepsis skin swabs were sterile in 1% CHG group compared with 95.6% of the swabs in the 2% CHG group (risk difference −2.7%, 95% CI −6.2% to +0.8%). The lower bound of 95% CI crossed the pre-specified absolute non-inferiority limit of 5%. Neonates developed mild dermatitis on 16 (2.3%) occasions. There was no significant difference in median plasma CHG levels in the two groups, 19.6 (12.5–36.4) and 12.6 (8.7–26.6) ng/mL, respectively. Conclusions Application of 1% aqueous CHG was not shown to be non-inferior to 2% chlorhexidine aqueous for skin antisepsis in neonates. There were no severe skin-related adverse events in either of the two groups. Trial registration number CTRI/2019/06/019822; (http://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?trialid=33453&EncHid=&userName=CTRI/2019/06/019822)

[1]  J. Wain,et al.  Safety and efficacy of 2% chlorhexidine gluconate aqueous versus 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol for skin disinfection prior to percutaneous central venous catheter insertion in preterm neonates: the ARCTIC randomised-controlled feasibility trial protocol , 2019, BMJ Open.

[2]  Helen Mccord,et al.  Current Practices of Antiseptic Use in Canadian Neonatal Intensive Care Units , 2018, American Journal of Perinatology.

[3]  D. Brandon,et al.  Early-life skin microbiota in hospitalized preterm and full-term infants , 2018, Microbiome.

[4]  A. Patrizi,et al.  Chlorhexidine-Induced Chemical Burns in Very Low Birth Weight Infants. , 2017, The Journal of pediatrics.

[5]  C. O’Donnell,et al.  2% chlorhexidine–70% isopropyl alcohol versus 10% povidone–iodine for insertion site cleaning before central line insertion in preterm infants: a randomised trial , 2017, Archives of Disease in Childhood: Fetal and Neonatal Edition.

[6]  J. Hopman,et al.  0.2% chlorhexidine acetate as skin disinfectant prevents skin lesions in extremely preterm infants: a preliminary report , 2017, Archives of Disease in Childhood: Fetal and Neonatal Edition.

[7]  Jacqueline E. Taylor,et al.  Skin antisepsis for reducing central venous catheter-related infections. , 2016, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[8]  C. Dunne,et al.  Combined education and skin antisepsis intervention for persistently high blood-culture contamination rates in neonatal intensive care. , 2016, The Journal of hospital infection.

[9]  P. Deshpande,et al.  90: Comparison of 2% Chlorhexidine in 70% Isopropyl Alcohol with 2% Aqueous Chlorhexidine for Skin Antisepsis Prior to Venepuncture in Very Low Birth Weight Infants: A Non-Inferiority Trial , 2014 .

[10]  Thomas A. Hooven,et al.  Healthcare-associated infections in the hospitalized neonate: a review. , 2014, Early human development.

[11]  A. Zargham-Boroujeni,et al.  Comparison of the effects of povidone-iodine and chlorhexidine solutions on skin bacterial flora among hospitalized infants , 2014, Journal of education and health promotion.

[12]  C. Bearer,et al.  Chlorhexidine inhibits L1 cell adhesion molecule–mediated neurite outgrowth in vitro , 2014, Pediatric Research.

[13]  M. Tracy,et al.  Skin antisepsis survey in Australia–New Zealand neonatal nurseries , 2013, Journal of paediatrics and child health.

[14]  P. Clarke,et al.  The hidden harms of Matching Michigan , 2013, Archives of Disease in Childhood: Fetal and Neonatal Edition.

[15]  S. Aucott,et al.  Absorption and Tolerability of Aqueous Chlorhexidine Gluconate Used for Skin Antisepsis Prior to Catheter Insertion in Preterm Neonates , 2013, Journal of Perinatology.

[16]  P. Nuntnarumit,et al.  A Randomized Controlled Trial of 1% Aqueous Chlorhexidine Gluconate Compared with 10% Povidone-Iodine for Topical Antiseptic in Neonates Effects on Blood Culture Contamination Rates , 2013, Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology.

[17]  L. Moehario,et al.  Comparison of alcohol, povidone-iodine and octenidine dihydrochloride as skin disinfectants to reduce bacterial count prior to peripheral venous catheter insertions in newborn infants , 2011 .

[18]  Jung Hyun Lee Catheter-related bloodstream infections in neonatal intensive care units , 2011, Korean journal of pediatrics.

[19]  P. Tamma,et al.  Chlorhexidine Use in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: Results from a National Survey , 2010, Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology.

[20]  M. Harris,et al.  Pilot trial to compare tolerance of chlorhexidine gluconate to povidone-iodine antisepsis for central venous catheter placement in neonates , 2009, Journal of Perinatology.

[21]  J. Hebling,et al.  Cytotoxic effects of different concentrations of chlorhexidine. , 2007, American journal of dentistry.

[22]  T. Lissauer,et al.  Mistaken identity of skin cleansing solution leading to extensive chemical burns in an extremely preterm infant , 2007, Acta paediatrica.

[23]  P. Lambert,et al.  Evaluation of a 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol skin disinfectant. , 2005, The Journal of hospital infection.

[24]  P. Reynolds,et al.  Alcohol burns in extremely low birthweight infants: still occurring , 2004, Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition.

[25]  J. Mylotte,et al.  Blood Cultures: Clinical Aspects and Controversies , 2000, European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.

[26]  M. Kelsey,et al.  The origin of coagulase-negative staphylococci isolated from blood cultures. , 1995, The Journal of hospital infection.

[27]  D. Goldmann,et al.  Comparison of 10% povidone-iodine and 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate for the prevention of peripheral intravenous catheter colonization in neonates: a prospective trial. , 1995, The Pediatric infectious disease journal.

[28]  P. Chandrasekar,et al.  Clinical issues of blood cultures. , 1994, Archives of internal medicine.

[29]  D. Ilstrup,et al.  Blood cultures: issues and controversies. , 1986, Reviews of Infectious Diseases.

[30]  P. Aggett,et al.  Percutaneous absorption of chlorhexidine in neonatal cord care. , 1981, Archives of disease in childhood.

[31]  J. Milstein,et al.  Burn hazard of isopropyl alcohol in the neonate. , 1981, Pediatrics.

[32]  R. Cogen,et al.  Cytopathologic effects of chlorhexidine on human cells. , 1977, Journal of periodontology.