ArticleAsian journal of transfusion science2014
Prospective evaluation of 2% (w/v) alcoholic chlorhexidine gluconate as an antiseptic agent for blood donor arm preparation.
Article in Asian journal of transfusion science, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Skin preparation with alcohol versus alcohol followed by any antiseptic for preventing bacteraemia or contamination of blood for transfusion.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimA prospective study was undertaken to evaluate the use of 2% (w/v) alcoholic chlorhexidine gluconate (2% AlcCHG) in donor arm preparation, to monitor the contamination rate of blood products after the collection and to find incidence of transfusion associated bacteremia. SETTINGS AND
designOptimal skin antisepsis of the phlebotomy site is essential to minimize the risk of contamination. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in India has recommended antisepsis with three-step regimen of spirit-10% povidone iodine-spirit for donor arm antisepsis, but not with chlorhexidine, which is recommended by many other authors. MATERIAL AND
methodsA total of 795 donors were studied from July 2011 to January 2012. Spirit-10% povidone iodine-spirit was used for 398 donors and 2% AlcCHG was used for 397 donors with the two-step method for arm antisepsis. Swabs were collected before and after use of antiseptic agents for all the donors. All the blood products collected from donors with growth in post-antisepsis swabs were cultured. A total of 123 various blood products were cultured irrespective of the method and result of antisepsis was observed. A total of seven patients had mild transfusion reaction. The transfused blood products, blood and urine specimen of the patients who had transfusion reaction were also cultured.
resultsSeven donors out of 398 donors had growth in post-antisepsis swab with spirit-10% povidone iodine-spirit protocol and three donors out of 397 donors had growth in post-antisepsis swab with 2% AlcCHG protocol. All blood products collected from donors who had growth in post-antisepsis swabs when cultured had no growth. There was no contamination of blood products.
conclusionsTwo percent (w/v) alcoholic chlorhexidine gluconate with two-step protocol can be used as an antiseptic agent for donor arm preparation without considerable cost difference. It is at par with spirit 10% povidone iodine spirit protocol as suggested by FDA in India. There was no reported transfusion associated bacteremia in the study period.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.