Impact of chlorhexidine bathing on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus incidence in an endemic chronic care setting: A randomized controlled trial

The impact of chlorhexidine bathing on hospital-acquired bloodstream infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) bathing of hospitalized patients may have benefit in reducing hospital-acquired bloodstream infections (HABSIs). However, the magnitude of effect, implementation fidelity, and patient-centered outcomes are unclear. In this meta-analysis, we examined the effect of CHG bathing on prevention of HABSIs and assessed fidelity to implementation of this behavioral intervention.

Methods

We undertook a meta-analysis by searching Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane’s CENTRAL registry from database inception through January 4, 2019 without language restrictions. We included randomized controlled trials, cluster randomized trials and quasi-experimental studies that evaluated the effect of CHG bathing versus a non-CHG comparator for prevention of HABSIs in any adult healthcare setting. Studies of pediatric patients, of pre-surgical CHG use, or without a non-CHG comparison arm were excluded. Outcomes of this study were HABSIs, patient-centered outcomes, such as patient comfort during the bath, and implementation fidelity assessed through five elements: adherence, exposure or dose, quality of the delivery, participant responsiveness, and program differentiation. Three authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality; a random-effects model was used.

Results

We included 26 studies with 861,546 patient-days and 5259 HABSIs. CHG bathing markedly reduced the risk of HABSIs (IRR = 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52–0.68). The effect of CHG bathing was consistent within subgroups: randomized (0.67, 95% CI: 0.53–0.85) vs. non-randomized studies (0.54, 95% CI: 0.44–0.65), bundled (0.66, 95% CI: 0.62–0.70) vs. non-bundled interventions (0.51, 95% CI: 0.39–0.68), CHG impregnated wipes (0.63, 95% CI: 0.55–0.73) vs. CHG solution (0.41, 95% CI: 0.26–0.64), and intensive care unit (ICU) (0.58, 95% CI: 0.49–0.68) vs. non-ICU settings (0.56, 95% CI: 0.38–0.83). Only three studies reported all five measures of fidelity, and ten studies did not report any patient-centered outcomes.

Conclusions

Patient bathing with CHG significantly reduced the incidence of HABSIs in both ICU and non-ICU settings. Many studies did not report fidelity to the intervention or patient-centered outcomes. For sustainability and replicability essential for effective implementation, fidelity assessment that goes beyond whether a patient received an intervention or not should be standard practice particularly for complex behavioral interventions such as CHG bathing.

Trial registration

Study registration with PROSPERO CRD42015032523.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12879-019-4002-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Chlorhexidine versus routine bathing to prevent multidrug-resistant organisms and all-cause bloodstream infections in general medical and surgical units (ABATE Infection trial): a cluster-randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Universal skin and nasal decolonisation reduces multidrug-resistant pathogens and bloodstream infections in intensive care units. The effect of universal decolonisation on pathogens and infections in non-critical-care units is unknown. The aim of the ABATE Infection trial was to evaluate the use of chlorhexidine bathing in non-critical-care units, with an intervention similar to one that was found to reduce multidrug-resistant organisms and bacteraemia in intensive care units.

METHODS

The ABATE Infection (active bathing to eliminate infection) trial was a cluster-randomised trial of 53 hospitals comparing routine bathing to decolonisation with universal chlorhexidine and targeted nasal mupirocin in non-critical-care units. The trial was done in hospitals affiliated with HCA Healthcare and consisted of a 12-month baseline period from March 1, 2013, to Feb 28, 2014, a 2-month phase-in period from April 1, 2014, to May 31, 2014, and a 21-month intervention period from June 1, 2014, to Feb 29, 2016. Hospitals were randomised and their participating non-critical-care units assigned to either routine care or daily chlorhexidine bathing for all patients plus mupirocin for known methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) carriers. The primary outcome was MRSA or vancomycin-resistant enterococcus clinical cultures attributed to participating units, measured in the unadjusted, intention-to-treat population as the HR for the intervention period versus the baseline period in the decolonisation group versus the HR in the routine care group. Proportional hazards models assessed differences in outcome reductions across groups, accounting for clustering within hospitals. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02063867.

FINDINGS

There were 189 081 patients in the baseline period and 339 902 patients (156 889 patients in the routine care group and 183 013 patients in the decolonisation group) in the intervention period across 194 non-critical-care units in 53 hospitals. For the primary outcome of unit-attributable MRSA-positive or VRE-positive clinical cultures (figure 2), the HR for the intervention period versus the baseline period was 0·79 (0·73-0·87) in the decolonisation group versus 0·87 (95% CI 0·79-0·95) in the routine care group. No difference was seen in the relative HRs (p=0·17). There were 25 (<1%) adverse events, all involving chlorhexidine, among 183 013 patients in units assigned to chlorhexidine, and none were reported for mupirocin.

INTERPRETATION

Decolonisation with universal chlorhexidine bathing and targeted mupirocin for MRSA carriers did not significantly reduce multidrug-resistant organisms in non-critical-care patients.

FUNDING

National Institutes of Health.

Bathing Habits in Emergency Department Patients with Cellulitis or Abscess Versus Controls

OBJECTIVE

Cellulitis is a leading cause of emergency department (ED) visits, with more than 200 cases per 100,000 people per year. Although many risk factors have been identified, including edema, skin breakdown, and penetrance of the skin, there are few data available on whether personal hygiene habits (bathing and clean clothes) are associated with increased risk for soft tissue infection. Studies looking at chlorhexidine baths in the intensive care unit to prevent soft tissue infections have shown conflicting and limited efficacy. Our objective was to determine whether poor personal hygiene, as manifested in poor bathing habits, a lack of access to clean clothes, or frequent needle self-injections, are associated with cellulitis or abscesses.

METHODS

The research is a cross-sectional cohort study of patients with either cellulitis, soft tissue abscess, or both (cases) versus a control group of patients with abdominal pain without prior surgeries in a large, urban ED in a convenience sampling. We asked about bathing habits, access to clean clothing, and skin breaks from intravenous (IV) drug use as risk factors. The two groups were compared using descriptive statistics, and a regression analysis was performed to determine the characteristics that are predictive of soft tissue infections. The study was powered at 0.8 to detect a 20% difference in adequate bathing habits with 100 per group.

RESULTS

In an approximate 1-year study period, 108 cases were identified and compared with 104 abdominal pain controls selected at random from patients presenting to the same ED. In the cellulitis/abscess group the mean age was 47 and 81% were men, and in the control group the mean age was 45 and 39% were men. There were significantly more men in the cellulitis/abscess group (Diff 22%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 8-34, P < 0.01). Seventy percent (76 of 108) of cases versus 58% (80 of 104) of controls bathed daily (odds ratio [OR] 1.7, 95% CI 0.98-3.1, not significant). There was a significant difference between the two groups in laundry habits: 66% (71 of 108) of cases versus 42% (44 of 104) of controls did not have access to clean laundry daily (adjusted OR [AOR] 2.5, 95% CI 1.4-5.0, P < 0.01). The most profound and significant difference was noted between cases and controls regarding the use of IV drugs, in which 20 of 108 cases (19%) used IV drugs versus 3 of 104 controls (3%, P < 0.01). Finally, 35 of 108 (32%) of our cases had a history of infections, whereas only 5 of 104 (5%) of the controls had cellulitis or an abscess previously (P < 0.01). On regression analysis significant predictors of soft tissue infection were history of skin infection (AOR 7.0) and not cleaning clothes daily (AOR 2.5).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in bathing habits, but there was a significant difference in laundry habits between the case and control groups. Our study further confirms that IV drug use is a risk factor for cellulitis and no access to clean clothes daily was significantly related to the development of cellulitis. Failing to obtain daily showers was not associated with an increase in infection.

Chlorhexidine-based body washing for colonization and infection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus: an updated meta-analysis

Background

The effects of chlorhexidine-based body washing (CHW) on health care-associated infections have been reported in numerous studies, while their findings remain conflicting. This study aims to update the evidence for the effects of CHW on the risk of colonization or infection with hospital-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE).

Methods

Two independent authors searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception through February 2018. We selected all observational studies or clinical trials for the effect of CHW on the risk of colonization and infection with hospital-acquired MRSA or VRE. Random-effects models were applied to calculate summary incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for the related associations.

Results

Of 140 records identified, we obtained data from 17 relevant articles for meta-analysis. Compared with patients without antiseptic bathing, patients with CHW had a significantly lower risk of MRSA colonization (IRR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48–0.77) and VRE colonization (IRR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42–0.80). Similarly, we also noted that patients with CHW had a significantly lower risk of MRSA infection (IRR 0.65, 95% CI 0.52–0.81). However, no significantly lower risk of VRE infection (IRR 0.61, 95% CI 0.30–1.25) was noted in patients with CHW. Sensitivity analyses or trim-and-fill method confirmed the robustness of the findings.

Conclusion

Current evidence supports that patients with CHW had a significantly lower risk of MRSA or VRE colonization and a lower risk of MRSA infection. More evidence should be accumulated to reinforce these findings, especially on the effect of CHW on the risk of VRE infection.