Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37270604›Full record

Trial reportAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2023

Central-line associated bloodstream infections in intensive care units before and after implementation of daily antiseptic bathing with chlorhexidine or octenidine: a post-hoc analysis of a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

Luisa A Denkel, Frank Schwab, Jörg Clausmeyer, Michael Behnke, Jennifer Golembus, Solvy Wolke, Petra Gastmeier, Christine Geffers, CLIP-ID study group

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Luisa A DenkelInstitute of Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Hindenburgdamm 27, 12203, Berlin, Germany. luisa.denkel@charite.de.ORCID 0000-0003-4005-1315
Frank SchwabInstitute of Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Hindenburgdamm 27, 12203, Berlin, Germany.
Jörg ClausmeyerInstitute of Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Hindenburgdamm 27, 12203, Berlin, Germany.
Michael BehnkeInstitute of Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Hindenburgdamm 27, 12203, Berlin, Germany.
Jennifer GolembusInstitute of Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Hindenburgdamm 27, 12203, Berlin, Germany.
Solvy WolkeInstitute of Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Hindenburgdamm 27, 12203, Berlin, Germany.
Petra GastmeierInstitute of Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Hindenburgdamm 27, 12203, Berlin, Germany.
Christine GeffersInstitute of Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Hindenburgdamm 27, 12203, Berlin, Germany.
CLIP-ID study group
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundsAntiseptic bathing did not reduce central-line (CL) associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates in intensive care units (ICU) according to a recent cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT). However, this analysis did not consider baseline infection rates. Our post-hoc analysis of this cRCT aimed to use a before-after comparison to examine the effect of daily bathing with chlorhexidine, octenidine or water and soap (control) on ICU-attributable CLABSI rates.

methodsA post-hoc analysis of a multi-center cRCT was done. ICUs that did not yet perform routine antiseptic bathing were randomly assigned to one of three study groups applying daily bathing with 2% chlorhexidine-impregnated cloths, 0.08% octenidine wash mitts or water and soap (control) for 12 months. Baseline data was assessed 12 months before the intervention started when all ICUs routinely used water and soap. Poisson regression and generalised estimating equation models were applied to identify changes of CLABSI rates per 1000 CL days between intervention and baseline periods in each study group.

resultsThe cRCT was conducted in 72 ICUs (24 per study group) including 76,139 patients in the baseline and 76,815 patients in the intervention period. In the chlorhexidine group, incidence density of CLABSI was reduced from 1.48 to 0.90 CLABSI per 1000 CL days comparing baseline versus intervention period (P = 0.0085). No reduction was observed in the octenidine group (1.26 versus 1.47 CLABSI per 1000 CL days, P = 0.8735) and the control group (1.20 versus 1.17, P = 0.3298). Adjusted incidence rate ratios (intervention versus baseline) were 0.63 (95%CI 0.46-0.87, P = 0.0172) in the chlorhexidine, 1.17 (95% CI 0.79-1.72, P = 0.5111) in the octenidine and 0.98 (95% CI 0.60-1.58, P = 0.9190) in the control group. Chlorhexidine bathing reduced CLABSI with gram-positive bacteria, mainly coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS).

conclusionsIn this post-hoc analysis of a cRCT, the application of 2% chlorhexidine-impregnated cloths reduced ICU-attributable CLABSI. This preventive effect of chlorhexidine was restricted to CLABSI caused by gram-positive pathogens (CoNS). In contrast, 0.08% octenidine wash mitts did not reduce CLABSI rates in ICUs. Trial registration Registration number DRKS00010475, registration date August 18, 2016.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective Agents, LocalCross InfectionSepsisChlorhexidineHumansIminesIntensive Care UnitsPyridinesSoapsAnti-Infective Agents, LocalChlorhexidineIminesoctenidinePyridinesSoapsAntiseptic bathingChlorhexidine gluconateCLABSIOctenidine dihydrochloridePost-hoc before-after analysis

Identifiers

PMID37270604
PMCPMC10239202
OpenAlexW4379260586

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.