ArticleCritical care (London, England)2020
Chlorhexidine-impregnated sponge versus chlorhexidine gel dressing for short-term intravascular catheters: which one is better?
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 12 papers, 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.
Dressing: Comparison of 3-day and 7-day Catheter Dressing Frequency and Efficacy of Antiseptic Impregnated Dressing in Preventing Catheter-related Infection in ICU
Impact of Tegaderm HP and Tegaderm CHG in Major Catheter Related Infections and Dressing Detachment in ICU Patients a Prospective Randomized Study
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of central venous access device-associated skin impairment assessment instrument.Nursing open · 2022Pooled it
- Trial
- Prevention of arterial catheter-related bloodstream infections: current evidence and future directions.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Review
- Central venous catheter insertion site and infection prevention in 2024.Intensive care medicine · 2024Article
- Eliminating sternal wound infections: Why every cardiac surgery program needs an I hate infections team.JTCVS techniques · 2023Article
- Randomized controlled trial on healthy volunteers of pharmacokinetic and antimicrobial activity of a novel hydrogel-containing chlorhexidine dressing to prevent catheter-related bloodstream infection.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Catheter dressings.Intensive care medicine · 2022Article
- Obesity and risk of catheter-related infections in the ICU. A post hoc analysis of four large randomized controlled trials.Intensive care medicine · 2021Article
- Chlorhexidine-dress related contact dermatitis-the precautionary principle is no more relevant!Critical care (London, England) · 2020Article
- Chlorhexidine still has skin in the game.Critical care (London, England) · 2020Article
- Analysis of complications associated with peripherally inserted central venous catheters. Prospective observational study.Revista CuidarteArticle
- Comparative Effectiveness of 2 Chlorhexidine Gluconate-Containing Dressings in Reducing Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections, Hospital Stay, and Costs.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChlorhexidine-gluconate (CHG) impregnated dressings may prevent catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI). Chlorhexidine-impregnated sponge dressings (sponge-dress) and gel dressings (gel-dress) have never been directly compared. We used the data collected for two randomized-controlled trials to perform a comparison between sponge-dress and gel-dress.
methodsAdult critically ill patients who required short-term central venous or arterial catheter insertion were recruited. Our main analysis included only patients with CHG-impregnated dressings. The effect of gel-dress (versus sponge-dress) on major catheter-related infections (MCRI) and CRBSI was estimated using multivariate marginal Cox models. The comparative risks of dressing disruption and contact dermatitis were evaluated using logistic mix models for clustered data. An explanatory analysis compared gel-dress with standard dressings using either CHG skin disinfection or povidone iodine skin disinfection.
resultsA total of 3483 patients and 7941 catheters were observed in 16 intensive care units. Sponge-dress and gel-dress were utilized for 1953 and 2108 catheters, respectively. After adjustment for confounders, gel-dress showed similar risk for MCRI compared to sponge-dress (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.28-2.31, p = 0.68) and CRBSI (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.34-3.70, p = 0.85), less dressing disruptions (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60-0.86, p < 0.001), and more contact dermatitis (OR 3.60, 95% CI 2.51-5.15, p < 0.01). However, gel-dress increased the risk of contact dermatitis only if CHG was used for skin antisepsis (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.38-2.71, p < 0.01).
conclusionsWe described a similar infection risk for gel-dress and sponge-dress. Gel-dress showed fewer dressing disruptions. Concomitant use of CHG for skin disinfection and CHG-impregnated dressing may significantly increase contact dermatitis. TRIALS REGISTRATION: These studies were registered within ClinicalTrials.gov (numbers NCT01189682 and NCT00417235 ).
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.