Antiseptic efficacy and plasma chlorhexidine levels following two different methods of application of 1% aqueous chlorhexidine gluconate for skin disinfection in preterm newborns: a randomized controlled trial.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Richie Dalai, Sarita Mohapatra, Thirumurthy Velpandian, Jeeva Sankar, Anu Thukral, Ankit Verma, Minu Bajpai, R Dhinakaran, Mohammad Tousifullah, Ramesh Agarwal
{"title":"Antiseptic efficacy and plasma chlorhexidine levels following two different methods of application of 1% aqueous chlorhexidine gluconate for skin disinfection in preterm newborns: a randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Richie Dalai, Sarita Mohapatra, Thirumurthy Velpandian, Jeeva Sankar, Anu Thukral, Ankit Verma, Minu Bajpai, R Dhinakaran, Mohammad Tousifullah, Ramesh Agarwal","doi":"10.1038/s41372-024-02122-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Many neonatal units have started using Chlorhexidine gluconate for neonatal skin antisepsis. However, there is in-vitro evidence of inhibition of neurite growth. The current study aimed to compare two methods of its local application, for the extent of systemic absorption and antiseptic efficacy.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Parallel group, blinded, randomised trial, at a Level III, neonatal intensive care unit. Between December 2020 to July 2022, neonates from 28 to 34 weeks gestation, were randomized to local skin antisepsis by either- (a) 1% aqueous chlorhexidine (CHG aq) followed by cleansing off the residual agent with sterile water swab (Cleansing group) or (b)1% CHG aq followed by air drying (No cleansing group). The outcome measures were the proportion of post antisepsis skin swabs with no/insignificant growth, and the plasma chlorhexidine levels.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the total of 457 enrollments (Cleansing: n = 230; No Cleansing: n = 227), 216 (93.91%) in \"Cleansing\" vs. 221 (97.36%) in \"No cleansing\" (risk difference -3.45%, 95% CI -7.2 to 0.28%; p = 0.072) had no/insignificant growth post-antisepsis. The lower bound of the confidence interval crossed the pre-specified non-inferiority limit of 5%. The median (IQR) plasma chlorhexidine levels were not significantly different between the two groups (7.9 (5.6, 17.9)) ng/mL in Cleansing vs. 6.5 (4.6, 17.7) in No cleansing groups (p = 0.437).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Cleansing with sterile water after application of chlorhexidine in preterm neonates was not shown to be non-inferior compared to no cleansing, for skin antisepsis efficacy. Systemic absorption occurred to a similar extent despite cleansing off the residual agent.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>CTRI/2020/10/028719.</p>","PeriodicalId":16690,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Perinatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Perinatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-024-02122-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Many neonatal units have started using Chlorhexidine gluconate for neonatal skin antisepsis. However, there is in-vitro evidence of inhibition of neurite growth. The current study aimed to compare two methods of its local application, for the extent of systemic absorption and antiseptic efficacy.

Study design: Parallel group, blinded, randomised trial, at a Level III, neonatal intensive care unit. Between December 2020 to July 2022, neonates from 28 to 34 weeks gestation, were randomized to local skin antisepsis by either- (a) 1% aqueous chlorhexidine (CHG aq) followed by cleansing off the residual agent with sterile water swab (Cleansing group) or (b)1% CHG aq followed by air drying (No cleansing group). The outcome measures were the proportion of post antisepsis skin swabs with no/insignificant growth, and the plasma chlorhexidine levels.

Results: Of the total of 457 enrollments (Cleansing: n = 230; No Cleansing: n = 227), 216 (93.91%) in "Cleansing" vs. 221 (97.36%) in "No cleansing" (risk difference -3.45%, 95% CI -7.2 to 0.28%; p = 0.072) had no/insignificant growth post-antisepsis. The lower bound of the confidence interval crossed the pre-specified non-inferiority limit of 5%. The median (IQR) plasma chlorhexidine levels were not significantly different between the two groups (7.9 (5.6, 17.9)) ng/mL in Cleansing vs. 6.5 (4.6, 17.7) in No cleansing groups (p = 0.437).

Conclusion: Cleansing with sterile water after application of chlorhexidine in preterm neonates was not shown to be non-inferior compared to no cleansing, for skin antisepsis efficacy. Systemic absorption occurred to a similar extent despite cleansing off the residual agent.

Trial registration number: CTRI/2020/10/028719.

早产新生儿使用 1%葡萄糖酸氯己定水溶液进行皮肤消毒的两种不同方法的杀菌效果和血浆洗必泰水平:随机对照试验。
目的:许多新生儿科已开始使用葡萄糖酸氯己定进行新生儿皮肤消毒。然而,有体外证据表明氯己定会抑制神经元的生长。本研究旨在比较两种局部使用方法的全身吸收程度和杀菌效果:研究设计:平行分组、盲法、随机试验,在三级新生儿重症监护病房进行。在 2020 年 12 月至 2022 年 7 月期间,妊娠 28 周至 34 周的新生儿被随机分为以下两组:(a) 1%洗必泰水溶液(CHG aq)局部皮肤防腐,然后用无菌水棉签清洁残留药剂(清洁组);(b) 1% CHG aq,然后风干(无清洁组)。结果指标为消毒后皮肤拭子无/显著生长的比例和血浆洗必泰水平:在总共 457 名参加者(清洁组:n = 230;无清洁组:n = 227)中,"清洁组 "有 216 人(93.91%)在消毒后皮肤拭子无/显著增生,而 "无清洁组 "有 221 人(97.36%)(风险差异 -3.45%,95% CI -7.2 至 0.28%;p = 0.072)。置信区间的下限超过了 5%的预设非劣效性界限。两组血浆洗必泰水平的中位数(IQR)差异不大(清洗组为 7.9 (5.6, 17.9) ng/mL,未清洗组为 6.5 (4.6, 17.7) ng/mL,p = 0.437):结论:早产新生儿使用洗必泰后用无菌水清洗与不清洗相比,皮肤防腐效果并不差。尽管清洗掉了残留药剂,但全身吸收的程度相似:CTRI/2020/10/028719.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Perinatology
Journal of Perinatology 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
6.90%
发文量
284
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Perinatology provides members of the perinatal/neonatal healthcare team with original information pertinent to improving maternal/fetal and neonatal care. We publish peer-reviewed clinical research articles, state-of-the art reviews, comments, quality improvement reports, and letters to the editor. Articles published in the Journal of Perinatology embrace the full scope of the specialty, including clinical, professional, political, administrative and educational aspects. The Journal also explores legal and ethical issues, neonatal technology and product development. The Journal’s audience includes all those that participate in perinatal/neonatal care, including, but not limited to neonatologists, perinatologists, perinatal epidemiologists, pediatricians and pediatric subspecialists, surgeons, neonatal and perinatal nurses, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, social workers, dieticians, speech and hearing experts, other allied health professionals, as well as subspecialists who participate in patient care including radiologists, laboratory medicine and pathologists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信