Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37907266›Full record

Trial reportArchives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition2024

2% chlorhexidine gluconate aqueous versus 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol for skin disinfection prior to percutaneous central venous catheterisation: the ARCTIC randomised controlled feasibility trial.

Paul Clarke, Aung Soe, Amy Nichols, Helen Harizaj, Mark A Webber, Louise Linsell, Jennifer L Bell, Catherine Tremlett, Priyadarsini Muthukumar, Santosh Pattnayak and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Seeing beyond the obvious: pragmatic skin care guidance for infants 22-24 weeks gestational age.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

14 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Paul ClarkeNeonatal Intensive Care Unit, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, Norfolk, UK paul.clarke@nnuh.nhs.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6203-7632
Aung SoeNeonatal Intensive Care Unit, Medway Maritime Hospital, Gillingham, Kent, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1820-8718
Amy NicholsNeonatal Intensive Care Unit, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, Norfolk, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7657-2588
Helen HarizajNeonatal Intensive Care Unit, Medway Maritime Hospital, Gillingham, Kent, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-1483-4770
Mark A WebberNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9169-7592
Louise LinsellNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3205-6511
Jennifer L BellNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9571-0715
Catherine TremlettDepartment of Microbiology, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, Norfolk, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6411-669X
Priyadarsini MuthukumarNeonatal Intensive Care Unit, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, Norfolk, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9784-8918
Santosh PattnayakNeonatal Intensive Care Unit, Medway Maritime Hospital, Gillingham, Kent, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3495-450X
Christopher PartlettNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5139-3412
Andrew KingNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7175-2718
Ed JuszczakNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5500-2247
Paul T HeathCentre for Neonatal and Paediatric Infection, Infection and Immunity, Saint George's University of London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7540-7433
Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of East Anglia · GBSt George's, University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveCatheter-related sepsis (CRS) is a major complication with significant morbidity and mortality. Evidence is lacking regarding the most appropriate antiseptic for skin disinfection before percutaneous central venous catheter (PCVC) insertion in preterm neonates. To inform the feasibility and design of a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) of two antiseptic formulations, we conducted the Antiseptic Randomised Controlled Trial for Insertion of Catheters (ARCTIC) feasibility study to assess catheter colonisation, sepsis, and skin morbidity.

designFeasibility RCT.

settingTwo UK tertiary-level neonatal intensive care units. PATIENTS: Preterm infants born <34 weeks' gestation scheduled to undergo PCVC insertion.

interventionsSkin disinfection with either 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG)-aqueous or 2% CHG-70% isopropyl alcohol (IPA) before PCVC insertion and at removal. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Proportion in the 2% CHG-70% IPA arm with a colonised catheter at removal. MAIN FEASIBILITY OUTCOMES: Rates of: (1) CRS, catheter-associated sepsis (CAS), and CRS/CAS per 1,000 PCVC days; (2) recruitment and retention; (3) data completeness. SAFETY OUTCOMES: Daily skin morbidity scores recorded from catheter insertion until 48 hours post-removal.

results116 babies were randomised. Primary outcome incidence was 4.1% (95% confidence interval: 0.9% to 11.5%). Overall catheter colonisation rate was 5.2% (5/97); CRS 2.3/1000 catheter days; CAS 14.8/1000 catheter days. Recruitment, retention and data completeness were good. No major antiseptic-related skin injury was reported.

conclusionsA definitive comparative efficacy trial is feasible, but the very low catheter colonisation rate would make a large-scale RCT challenging due to the very large sample size required. ARCTIC provides preliminary reassurance supporting potential safe use of 2% CHG-70% IPA and 2% CHG-aqueous in preterm neonates. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN82571474.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective Agents, LocalCatheterization, Central VenousCatheter-Related InfectionsCentral Venous CathetersSepsis2-PropanolChlorhexidineDisinfectionFeasibility StudiesHumansInfant, Newborn2-PropanolAnti-Infective Agents, LocalChlorhexidinechlorhexidine gluconateInfectious Disease MedicineMicrobiologyNeonatologySepsis

Identifiers

PMID37907266
PMCPMC10894828
OpenAlexW4388083651

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.