0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Investigation |

Chlorhexidine Gluconate to Cleanse Patients in a Medical Intensive Care Unit:  The Effectiveness of Source Control to Reduce the Bioburden of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci FREE

Michael O. Vernon, DrPH; Mary K. Hayden, MD; William E. Trick, MD; Robert A. Hayes, BSc; Donald W. Blom, RN; Robert A. Weinstein, MD; Chicago Antimicrobial Resistance Project (CARP)
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Department of Medicine, Stroger (Cook County) Hospital, Chicago, Ill (Drs Vernon, Trick, and Weinstein and Mr Hayes); and Department of Medicine, Rush Medical College, Chicago (Drs Hayden and Weinstein and Mr Blom).


Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(3):306-312. doi:10.1001/archinte.166.3.306.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background  Historically, methods of interrupting pathogen transmission have focused on improving health care workers' adherence to recommended infection control practices. An adjunctive approach may be to use source control (eg, to decontaminate patients' skin).

Methods  We performed a prospective sequential-group single-arm clinical trial in a teaching hospital's medical intensive care unit from October 2002 to December 2003. We bathed or cleansed 1787 patients and assessed them for acquisition of vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE). We performed a nested study of 86 patients with VRE colonization and obtained culture specimens from 758 environmental surfaces and 529 health care workers' hands. All patients were cleansed daily with the procedure specific to the study period as follows: period 1, soap and water baths; period 2, cleansing with cloths saturated with 2% chlorhexidine gluconate; and period 3, cloth cleansing without chlorhexidine. We measured colonization of patient skin by VRE, health care worker hand or environmental surface contamination by VRE, and patient acquisition of VRE rectal colonization.

Results  Compared with soap and water baths, cleansing patients with chlorhexidine-saturated cloths resulted in 2.5 log10 less colonies of VRE on patients' skin and less VRE contamination of health care workers' hands (risk ratio [RR], 0.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4-0.8) and environmental surfaces (RR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.2-0.5). The incidence of VRE acquisition decreased from 26 colonizations per 1000 patient-days to 9 per 1000 patient-days (RR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.1-0.9). For all measures, effectiveness of cleansing with nonmedicated cloths was similar to that of soap and water baths.

Conclusion  Cleansing patients with chlorhexidine-saturated cloths is a simple, effective strategy to reduce VRE contamination of patients' skin, the environment, and health care workers' hands and to decrease patient acquisition of VRE.

Figures in this Article

Hospitals provide an environment conducive to the rapid spread of pathogens, especially antimicrobial-resistant bacteria. Factors that influence transmission include low rates of hand washing by hospital personnel and colonization pressure, that is, frequency of bacterial carriage by adjacent patients.1 Strategies to minimize the spread of pathogens have relied on improving adherence to hand hygiene recommendations and isolation precautions for colonized or infected patients.

Because traditional infection control activities often meet with limited success,2 we evaluated an adjunctive approach: source control—reducing the microbial density of bacteria on patients' skin by cleansing them with 2% chlorhexidine gluconate. In an intensive care unit (ICU) population, we evaluated the effect of source control on patients' skin colonization by vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), measured the effect on VRE contamination of environmental surfaces and health care workers' hands, and assessed all patients for VRE acquisition.

We chose chlorhexidine as the antiseptic because of its low toxicity,3 proven efficacy over several decades against a broad range of pathogens,4 prolonged residual effect,5 and known value for other infection control applications.69 We chose VRE as the marker organism because it is a problem in hospitals, especially in ICUs, and has been well documented to colonize patients' skin and contaminate environmental surfaces and health care workers' hands, resulting in dissemination to other patients.10,11

SETTING AND STUDY DESIGN

We evaluated patients in the 21-bed medical ICU (MICU) at Rush University Medical Center, a 720-bed hospital in Chicago, Ill. Before study initiation, patients received soap and water basin baths. During 3 sequential periods, we altered the bathing procedure for all MICU patients: soap and water basin baths (hereafter, soap and water period) (October 14, 2002, to February 14, 2003); single-use, no-rinse disposable cloths saturated with 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (hereafter, chlorhexidine period) (February 22 to July 27, 2003); and single-use, no-rinse disposable cloths without chlorhexidine (hereafter, nonmedicated cloth period) (July 30 to December 31, 2003). All MICU patients received at least 1 daily bath.

Before each study period, we instructed MICU nurses about standard bathing procedures and provided a standard set of products. During the soap and water period, they used bar soap (Dial Corp, Scottsdale, Ariz), warm water, and multiple terrycloth washcloths to cleanse patients' skin from clean to dirty areas. During the chlorhexidine period, disposable cloths were supplied in 2 packets (Sage Products Inc, Cary, Ill), warmed for 60 seconds in a microwave oven before use. One packet contained 2 nonmedicated moistened cloths for the face and neck, the second contained 6 chlorhexidine-saturated cloths to cleanse specific body parts (ie, arms and chest, back, each leg, perineum, and buttocks). During the nonmedicated cloth period, patients were bathed with the Comfort Bath system (Sage Products Inc); each packet contained 8 disposable cloths that were used like the chlorhexidine cloths. Because the chlorhexidine-impregnated cloths were a medicated version of the Comfort Bath system, we included the nonmedicated cloth period as a control for the cloth delivery system. Throughout the study, stool from incontinent patients was removed with terrycloth towels, soap, and water; then, the involved skin was cleansed using that period's method. During all periods, patients' rooms were cleaned daily with Virex (SC Johnson Corp, Sturtevant, Wis), a quaternary ammonium disinfectant12; there were no changes in cleaning procedures for patients with VRE colonization. Patients' skin was moisturized with lotion that does not interfere with chlorhexidine's biocidal activity. Contact isolation precautions were prescribed for all patients whose culture specimens were positive for VRE.

We obtained institutional review board approval. Informed consent for taking culture specimens from hands was obtained from health care workers.

SAMPLE SELECTION AND PATIENT CHARACTERISTICS

To identify patients with VRE colonization for a nested evaluation of skin colonization, we obtained rectal swab specimens on admission from patients whose length of stay was anticipated by health care providers to be 3 or more days (Figure 1) and took culture specimens from them as described previously.1,10 Every 1 to 2 days, we took culture specimens from patients whose cultures were negative for VRE organisms on admission. Culture specimens were obtained from patients who had an anticipated stay of less than 3 days if it became apparent that their stay would be extended. We recorded demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with VRE colonization. Five patients (0.3%) with a body surface area of 2.5 m2 or greater were excluded from rectal surveillance.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Flowchart displaying the study design. MICU indicates medical intensive care unit; VRE, vancomycin-resistant enterococci.

Graphic Jump Location
PATIENT, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND HEALTH CARE WORKER HAND CULTURE SPECIMENS

For patients with VRE colonization, we obtained culture specimens from a 50-cm2 area of right and left inguinal and antecubital skin on 3 consecutive days with rayon-tipped swabs before morning baths (hereafter, prebath) and 0 to 2, 3 to 5, and 6 to 8 hours postbath. Each swab was placed in buffered saline with 0.05% Tween 80 and 0.5% (weight to volume ratio) lecithin; dilutions were plated on VRE-selective media.1,10,13 Growth was expressed quantitatively. Because VRE status was unknown until culture specimen results were finalized, patients were exposed to at least 3 days of the bathing method before skin culture specimens were obtained. Patients were eligible for reenrollment in the study 5 days after the end of their previous enrollment.

To detect environmental VRE contamination, we similarly obtained culture specimens from 50 cm2 of the bed rail, pull sheet, and overbed table each time culture specimens were taken from a patient with VRE colonization.

To detect VRE hand carriage in health care workers, we took culture specimens from a convenience sample of workers exiting rooms of patients with VRE colonization, after patient contact but before hand hygiene or glove removal. To assess the overall microbial density of VRE, we took culture specimens from hands of workers in common MICU areas. Specimen cultures of hands were taken via a modified glove juice technique.13,14

ASSESSMENT FOR VRE ACQUISITION

We defined VRE acquisition as a positive finding for VRE from a rectal culture specimen collected more than 3 days after MICU admission in patients who had at least 1 previous negative culture finding for VRE. We calculated the percentage of all patients who acquired VRE, that is, the number whose findings from culture specimens converted from negative for VRE to positive for VRE divided by the number whose findings from culture specimens were negative for VRE on admission and had a subsequent swab collected. We also calculated VRE incidence, defined as the number of acquisitions divided by at-risk patient-days (ie, for patients whose culture specimens were negative for VRE, the number of patient-days between the first negative swab result and the last negative swab result or until acquisition). Because for some patients the initial rectal swab culture specimen was obtained more than 3 days after admission to the MICU, we performed a sensitivity analysis including these patients as acquisitions if their initial swab results were positive.

EVALUATION FOR CHLORHEXIDINE RESISTANCE

We determined chlorhexidine (Xttrium Laboratories, Chicago, Ill) susceptibility of all unique VRE isolates recovered from inguinal swabs via a microdilution method15 using the Bioscreen C reader (MTX Laboratory Systems Corp, Vienna, Ga).

SKIN ASSESSMENTS

We assessed the skin condition of patients in the MICU daily, recorded as 0 (reference range) to 3 (severe irritation). If skin condition worsened (ie, >1 point deterioration or a new rash involving ≥18% of the skin),16 a physician from the study (M.K.H.) evaluated the patient. For patients who remained in the MICU for 3 or more days, we compared admission and discharge scores.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Sample Size for Evaluation of Skin Colonization

We estimated that to detect a 30% absolute reduction in inguinal contamination by VRE from a baseline of 90%, we needed 36 subjects with VRE colonization in each period (power, 80%; α, .05). To refine the size needed for the nonmedicated cloth period, we analyzed data from the first 2 periods. Based on reductions in inguinal VRE colonization during the chlorhexidine period, we determined that to identify a similar reduction during the nonmedicated cloth period, we needed 18 participants.

To detect a 50% reduction in hand contamination, assuming a 40% prevalence of contamination at baseline,17 we estimated that 180 culture specimens were needed each period: 90 after exiting a colonized patient's room and 90 from MICU common areas (power, 80%; 2-tailed α, .05). Sample size calculations were performed using Epi-Info statistical software (version 6.03; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga).

Inguinal and Antecubital Skin Colonization

We compared the frequency and density of VRE and evaluated whether colonization was associated with either the day or time of day that culture specimens were taken. Because the day had little effect on colonizations, we calculated mean colony counts across the days. Because prebath samples had higher colonization densities than did postbath samples, we adjusted for this during multivariable analyses. We evaluated differences in degree of VRE contamination using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. We calculated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for differences in mean log10 colony-forming units between periods using the bootstrap method.18 We constructed multivariable logistic regression models to adjust for patient characteristics in our comparison of bathing methods; the dependent variable was VRE skin contamination, dichotomized as yes or no. To adjust for repeated culture specimens at the patient level, we used the generalized estimating equation.

Environmental and Health Care Worker Hand Contamination

We compared frequency and degree of contamination for each surface (ie, bed rail, overbed table, or pull sheet) and workers' hands using the χ2 test or Wilcoxon rank sum test. We calculated the Mantel-Haenszel summary relative risk and 95% CI after stratifying by environmental surface or hand sampling group (ie, taken at the common areas vs at exit from a patient's room).

To evaluate the degree of microbial contamination, we used log10 transformation of colony counts. During all analyses, we considered the soap and water period as the referent group. We used statistical software by SAS (version 8.02; SAS Institute, Cary, NC) or Stata (version 8.2; Stata Corp, College Station, Tex).

STUDY SAMPLE

The numbers of MICU admissions during the 3 periods were as follows: 483 patients in the soap and water period (2113 patient-days), 642 in the chlorhexidine period (2210 patient-days), and 662 in the nonmedicated cloth period (2466 patient-days). In the nested evaluation of skin colonization, the number of evaluable patients was 34 during the soap and water and chlorhexidine periods and 18 in the nonmedicated cloth period; 4 patients (2 each from the soap and water and chlorhexidine periods) were excluded because of colonization by Enterococcus gallinarum or Enterococcus casseliflavus species with low-level vancomycin resistance. The number of patients unique to each study period and percentage of observations they represented were similar: soap and water period (27; 79%), chlorhexidine period (24; 71%), and nonmedicated cloth period (14; 78%); P = .68. Characteristics of patients with VRE colonization were similar (Table 1).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Comparison of Characteristics of Patients Evaluated for Skin and Environmental Contamination During the 3 Study Periods
PATIENT SKIN CULTURE SPECIMENS

The percentage of patients who had at least 1 positive finding from an inguinal culture specimen was lower during the chlorhexidine period than the soap and water period (16/34 [47%] vs 32/34 [94%]; P<.001) (Figure 2). Inguinal colonization rates in the nonmedicated cloth and soap and water periods were similar (P≥.50). During the chlorhexidine period, mean colonization density of VRE was 2.5 (95% CI, 1.9-3.0) log10 colony counts lower than during the soap and water period (Figure 3). During the nonmedicated cloth period, VRE colonization densities were consistently, although not statistically, lower than during the soap and water period (Figure 3). By multivariable analysis, after adjusting for other factors (eg, receipt of antimicrobial agents, time of culture specimen acquisition, and presence of invasive devices), use of chlorhexidine cloths was associated with significantly less inguinal colonization (P<.001). Patients who were reenrolled had a degree of VRE colonization similar to that of patients at initial enrollment.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Risk ratios for skin contamination and environmental or health care worker contamination by or patient acquisition of vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE). Comparison of soap and water baths to cleansing with either chlorhexidine or nonmedicated cloths. Summary risk ratios are displayed for the frequency of VRE contamination of patients' skin (inguinal and antecubital), environmental surfaces (bed rail, overbed table, or pull sheet), and workers' hands (culture specimens taken after exiting the room of a patient with VRE colonization or a common room in the medical intensive care unit). The point estimate and upper and lower bounds of the 95% confidence intervals are displayed.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.

Inguinal skin colonization density with vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) by method of patient cleansing. Comparison of mean colonization densities using Wilcoxon rank sum test: chlorhexidine cloths vs soap and water, P≤.001; nonmedicated cloths vs soap and water, P>.05. The number of patients for each study period: soap and water, 34; chlorhexidine cloths, 34; nonmedicated cloths, 18. The bath time point is in relation to the morning bath; all patients had at least 3 days of exposure to the respective bathing method before any skin cultures were obtained. CI indicates confidence interval.

Graphic Jump Location

At the antecubital site, mean log10 VRE colony counts were as follows: soap and water period, 0.3; chlorhexidine period, 0.05; and nonmedicated cloth period, 0.4 (P<.05 for comparison of chlorhexidine to soap and water).

CULTURE SPECIMENS FROM HEALTH CARE WORKER HANDS AND ENVIRONMENT

The total numbers of culture specimens taken from health care workers during the soap and water, chlorhexidine, and nonmedicated cloth periods were 170, 174, and 185, respectively. Frequency of hand contamination was less in common areas (8%-17%) than on the hands of health care workers exiting rooms of patients with VRE colonization (37%-56%). During the chlorhexidine period, there was a decreased frequency of hand contamination (Figure 2) for each sampling strategy (Table 2) and among both gloved (P = .004) and ungloved (P = .04) workers. The frequency of environmental contamination was lowest during the chlorhexidine period (Figure 2; Table 3).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Comparison of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci (VRE) Contamination on Health Care Workers' Hands During the 3 Study Periods
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Percentage of Environmental Surface Culture Specimens That Were Positive for Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci During the 3 Study Periods*
PATIENT SKIN CONDITION

We detected no serious adverse reactions related to any of the bath procedures. The skin condition of most patients (89%) was unchanged. More (6 [18%]) had deterioration in skin condition during the soap and water period than during the chlorhexidine (11 [3%]; P = .02) or nonmedicated cloth period (5 [1%]; P = .001).

CHLORHEXIDINE SUSCEPTIBILITY

For the 3 periods, the median chlorhexidine minimum inhibitory concentrations for strains of VRE—11 strains of Enterococcus faecalis (4, 2, and 2 μg/mL, respectively) and 52 strains of Enterococcus faecium (2, 2, and 2 μg/mL, respectively)—were similar. The highest minimum inhibitory concentration, 8 μg/mL, was from an E faecalis strain that was collected during the nonmedicated cloth period.

VRE ACQUISITION

Among patients who remained in the MICU for more than 3 days, the percentage screened on admission for the presence of rectal VRE colonization was similar during the soap and water (75%) and chlorhexidine (72%) periods but lower in the nonmedicated cloth period (55%). The percentage of patients who had VRE detected on admission was similar in the 3 periods: soap and water (18%), chlorhexidine (16%), and nonmedicated cloth (19%). Acquisition of rectal colonization was significantly lower in the chlorhexidine period than in the soap and water period (6/77 [7.8%] vs 16/79 [20%]; RR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.9; P = .02) but not during the nonmedicated cloth period (8/69 [12%]; RR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.3-1.3; P = .15) (Figure 2). The incidence of VRE acquisition per 1000 patient-days was 26 during the soap and water period; 15 (P = .14) during the nonmedicated cloth period; and 9 (P = .01) during the chlorhexidine period. After adjusting for length of stay, VRE acquisition was significantly lower during the chlorhexidine period (P = .02) but not during the nonmedicated cloth period. As a sensitivity analysis, we counted as acquisitions those episodes in which VRE were detected on an initial swab collected more than 3 days after MICU admission. Using this definition, compared with the soap and water period, use of chlorhexidine remained protective against VRE acquisition (RR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7; P = .003) but use of nonmedicated cloths did not (RR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.4-1.3; P = .35).

We found that bathing MICU patients with disposable cloths saturated with 2% chlorhexidine reduced the microbial density of VRE on patients' skin, environmental surfaces, and health care workers' hands and was associated with decreased VRE acquisition. Cleansing with chlorhexidine seemed to have a cascade of effects. The marked reductions in skin colonization on patients are consistent with the antimicrobial and residual activities of topical chlorhexidine.19 The favorable impact on VRE contamination of workers' hands and the environment supports the importance of skin colonization on patients as a major source of VRE in ICUs.10,11,17,20 The reduction in the rates that patients acquire VRE most likely resulted from the decreased unit-wide contamination by VRE, which lowered the colonization pressure.1 The effect of a single intervention—chlorhexidine cleansing—on acquisition (RR, 0.4) is similar to the reduction reported in a study21 of enhanced infection control strategies that used at least 7 interventions, including cohort nursing, to control VRE in an oncology unit.

Other studies provide support for the concept of source control. A retrospective investigation, performed in response to a Food and Drug Administration recommendation to discontinue cleansing newborns with hexachlorophene, suggested that such cleansing had prevented outbreaks of neonatal staphylococcal disease.22 Prospective trials have evaluated antiseptic agents, including octenidine dihydrochloride,23 chlorhexidine,24,25 or triclosan,26 for whole-body washing of adult patients. Although largely uncontrolled, these studies demonstrated reductions in colonization and infection rates of hospitalized patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. During an 11-month period in an MICU, use of 4% chlorhexidine baths significantly reduced the frequency of multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter skin colonization.27 These findings have not resulted in changes in clinical practice because of concerns about toxic effects3 or because the trials have focused on outbreaks,28,29 were uncontrolled,23,30,31 or lacked readily available products. Our study adds important information by evaluating the use of chlorhexidine cleansing for control of VRE, an endemic antimicrobial-resistant organism; by including comparison populations; by assessing the effect on environmental and health care worker hand contamination; and by measuring the impact on cross-colonization of patients.

There may be concerns about chlorhexidine use, especially regarding development of chlorhexidine-resistant organisms or occurrence of allergic reactions. In our study, resistance was not a problem. Because of rare reports of allergic or anaphylactic reactions to chlorhexidine, especially after exposure of mucous membranes or during insertion of invasive devices,32,33 we did not use the chlorhexidine cloths on patients' faces, and we monitored all patients for rashes. In fact, fewer patients had deterioration in skin condition during use of the 2 disposable cloths.

Our study has several limitations. First, because we wanted to evaluate the effect of chlorhexidine on the microbial density of VRE in the MICU, where other patients can be sources of contamination, we used sequential study periods rather than a trial randomized at the patient level. Nonetheless, the patient characteristics and the percentage of MICU patients colonized by VRE on admission were similar in the 3 periods. Because the chlorhexidine cloths were used during the middle period, it seems unlikely that infection control (eg, hand hygiene practice or environmental cleaning practices) would have changed only during that time. Ideally, further evaluation will use a concurrent control group or multicenter-cluster randomized design. Second, staff could not be blinded to the cleansing method, which may have resulted in undetected changes in worker behavior or in the methods that investigators used to obtain culture specimens. Third, because baths were administered to patients on the day of admission to the MICU—at least 2 days before their VRE colonization status was available and skin culture specimens obtained—it was not possible to measure true baseline samples (ie, before the first bath); this explains the substantially lower prebath bacteria counts during the chlorhexidine cloth period. Fourth, factors other than the antimicrobial activity of chlorhexidine, such as contamination introduced during the soap and water period or mechanical removal of organisms by the cloths, may have affected results. Extrinsic contamination seems unlikely because VRE density did not increase after baths. Because nonmedicated cloths did not significantly reduce VRE contamination (Figure 3), it is unlikely that mechanical removal explains our findings. Fifth, we assessed the development of chlorhexidine resistance during a relatively short time. Although it may take longer for resistance to become apparent, chlorhexidine has been used in health care for decades without major resistance problems.4,34

In conclusion, bathing MICU patients with disposable cloths containing 2% chlorhexidine gluconate reduced the microbial density of VRE on patients' skin. This led to decreased contamination of environmental surfaces and health care workers' hands and less frequent patient acquisition of VRE. The chlorhexidine cloth was well tolerated by patients, and we detected no increase in chlorhexidine-resistant organisms. Our findings support the use of source control as an adjunctive infection control measure to reduce transmission of VRE and potentially of other epidemiologically important organisms that colonize the skin of hospitalized patients, particularly in high-risk settings such as ICUs.

Correspondence: William E. Trick, MD, Collaborative Research Unit, Stroger Hospital of Cook County, 1900 W Polk St, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60612 (wtrick@cchil.org).

Accepted for Publication: August 9, 2005.

Author Contributions: Dr Trick had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Financial Disclosure: None.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by grants from Sage Products Inc, Cary, Ill, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga, Cooperative Agreement No. U50/CCU515853.

Role of the Sponsor: Sage Products Inc provided guidance on product use but did not contribute to study design, data collection, analysis, manuscript preparation, or decision to publish.

Acknowledgment: We thank Alla Aroutcheva, PhD, Thomas Keaty, MEM, Robert Panek, Laura J. Phillips, MT (ASCP), Thomas W. Rice, PhD, Brian J. Peterson, BS, Erik M. Robinson, BS, and Sharon F. Welbel, MD, for technical assistance and the nurses, patient care technicians, and medical staff of the Medical Intensive Care Unit at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Ill, for their cooperation and support.

Bonten  MJSlaughter  SAmbergen  AW  et al.  The role of “colonization pressure” in the spread of vancomycin-resistant enterococci: an important infection control variable. Arch Intern Med 1998;1581127- 1132
PubMed Link to Article
Cepeda  JAWhitehouse  TCooper  B  et al.  Isolation of patients in single rooms or cohorts to reduce spread of MRSA in intensive-care units: prospective two-centre study. Lancet 2005;365295- 304
PubMed Link to Article
Kaul  AFJewett  JF Agents and techniques for disinfection of the skin. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1981;152677- 685
PubMed
Russell  ADDay  MJ Antibacterial activity of chlorhexidine. J Hosp Infect 1993;25229- 238
PubMed Link to Article
Lowbury  EJLilly  HA Use of 4 per cent chlorhexidine detergent solution (Hibiscrub) and other methods of skin disinfection. BMJ 1973;1510- 515
PubMed Link to Article
Hayek  LJEmerson  JM Preoperative whole body disinfection: a controlled clinical study. J Hosp Infect 1988;11 ((suppl B)) 15- 19
Link to Article
Garland  JSAlex  CPMueller  CD  et al.  A randomized trial comparing povidone-iodine to a chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated dressing for prevention of central venous catheter infections in neonates. Pediatrics 2001;1071431- 1436
PubMed Link to Article
Heasman  PAHeasman  LStacey  FMcCracken  GI Local delivery of chlorhexidine gluconate (PerioChip) in periodontal maintenance patients. J Clin Periodontol 2001;2890- 95
PubMed Link to Article
Wade  JJDesai  NCasewell  MW Hygienic hand disinfection for the removal of epidemic vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium and gentamicin-resistant Enterobacter cloacae. J Hosp Infect 1991;18211- 218
PubMed Link to Article
Bonten  MJHayden  MKNathan  C  et al.  Epidemiology of colonisation of patients and environment with vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Lancet 1996;3481615- 1619
PubMed Link to Article
Duckro  ANBlom  DWLyle  EAWeinstein  RAHayden  MK Transfer of vancomycin-resistant enterococci via health care worker hands. Arch Intern Med 2005;165302- 307
PubMed Link to Article
Blom  DWLyle  EAWeinstein  RAMeyer  PHayden  MK The relationship between environmental contamination with vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) and patient colonization in a medical intensive care unit.  Paper presented at: 40th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy September 17-20 2000 Toronto, Ontario
Trick  WEVernon  MOHayes  RA  et al.  Impact of ring wearing on hand contamination and comparison of hand hygiene agents in a hospital. Clin Infect Dis 2003;361383- 1390
PubMed Link to Article
Larson  ELStrom  MSEvans  CA Analysis of three variables in sampling solutions used to assay bacteria of hands: type of solution, use of antiseptic neutralizers, and solution temperature. J Clin Microbiol 1980;12355- 360
PubMed
National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Methods for Dilution Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria That Grows Aerobically. Document M7-A6. Wayne, Pa National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards2003;
Livingston  EHLee  S Percentage of burned body surface area determination in obese and nonobese patients. J Surg Res 2000;91106- 110
PubMed Link to Article
Tenorio  ARBadri  SMSahgal  NB  et al.  Effectiveness of gloves in the prevention of hand carriage of vancomycin-resistant enterococcus species by health care workers after patient care. Clin Infect Dis 2001;32826- 829
PubMed Link to Article
Efron  BTibshirani  RJ An Introduction to the Bootstrap.  New York, NY Chapman and Hall1993;
Rotter  ML Hand washing and hand disinfection. Mayhall  CG Hand washing and hand disinfection. Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pa Lippincott Williams and Wilkins1999;1339- 1355
Beezhold  DWSlaughter  SHayden  MK  et al.  Skin colonization with vancomycin-resistant enterococci among hospitalized patients with bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis 1997;24704- 706
PubMed Link to Article
Montecalvo  MAJarvis  WRUman  J  et al.  Infection-control measures reduce transmission of vancomycin-resistant enterococci in an endemic setting. Ann Intern Med 1999;131269- 272
PubMed Link to Article
Kaslow  RADixon  REMartin  SM  et al.  Staphylococcal disease related to hospital nursery bathing practices: a nationwide epidemiologic investigation. Pediatrics 1973;51418- 429
PubMed
Rohr  UMueller  CWilhelm  MMuhr  GGatermann  S Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus whole-body decolonization among hospitalized patients with variable site colonization by using mupirocin in combination with octenidine dihydrochloride. J Hosp Infect 2003;54305- 309
PubMed Link to Article
Leigh  DAStronge  JLMarriner  JSedgwick  J Total body bathing with “Hibiscrub” (chlorhexidine) in surgical patients: a controlled trial. J Hosp Infect 1983;4229- 235
PubMed Link to Article
Parras  FGuerrero  MCBouza  E  et al.  Comparative study of mupirocin and oral co-trimoxazole plus topical fusidic acid in eradication of nasal carriage of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995;39175- 179
PubMed Link to Article
Bartzokas  CAPaton  JHGibson  MFGraham  FMcLoughlin  GACroton  RS Control and eradication of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus on a surgical unit. N Engl J Med 1984;3111422- 1425
PubMed Link to Article
Borer  AGilad  JMegreleshvili  R  et al.  Prevalence and control of Acinetobacter baumannii (AB) skin colonization among medical intensive-care unit (MICU) patients.  Paper presented at: 43rd Annual Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy September 14-17, 2003 Chicago, Ill
Brady  LMThomson  MPalmer  MAHarkness  JL Successful control of endemic MRSA in a cardiothoracic surgical unit. Med J Aust 1990;152240- 245
PubMed
Tuffnell  DJCroton  RSHemingway  DMHartley  MNWake  PNGarvey  RJ Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus: the role of antisepsis in the control of an outbreak. J Hosp Infect 1987;10255- 259
PubMed Link to Article
Kampf  GKramer  A Eradication of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with an antiseptic soap and nasal mupirocin among colonized patients: an open uncontrolled clinical trial. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 2004;39
PubMed Link to Article
Sloot  NSiebert  JHoffler  U Eradication of MRSA from carriers by means of whole-body washing with an antiseptic in combination with mupirocin nasal ointment. Zentralbl Hyg Umweltmed 1999;202513- 523
PubMed
Okano  MNomura  MHata  S  et al.  Anaphylactic symptoms due to chlorhexidine gluconate. Arch Dermatol 1989;12550- 52
PubMed Link to Article
Evans  RJ Acute anaphylaxis due to topical chlorhexidine acetate. BMJ 1992;304686
PubMed Link to Article
Denton  GW Chlorhexidine. 5th ed. Philadelphia, Pa Lippincott Williams & Wilkins1993;

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Flowchart displaying the study design. MICU indicates medical intensive care unit; VRE, vancomycin-resistant enterococci.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Risk ratios for skin contamination and environmental or health care worker contamination by or patient acquisition of vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE). Comparison of soap and water baths to cleansing with either chlorhexidine or nonmedicated cloths. Summary risk ratios are displayed for the frequency of VRE contamination of patients' skin (inguinal and antecubital), environmental surfaces (bed rail, overbed table, or pull sheet), and workers' hands (culture specimens taken after exiting the room of a patient with VRE colonization or a common room in the medical intensive care unit). The point estimate and upper and lower bounds of the 95% confidence intervals are displayed.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.

Inguinal skin colonization density with vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) by method of patient cleansing. Comparison of mean colonization densities using Wilcoxon rank sum test: chlorhexidine cloths vs soap and water, P≤.001; nonmedicated cloths vs soap and water, P>.05. The number of patients for each study period: soap and water, 34; chlorhexidine cloths, 34; nonmedicated cloths, 18. The bath time point is in relation to the morning bath; all patients had at least 3 days of exposure to the respective bathing method before any skin cultures were obtained. CI indicates confidence interval.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Comparison of Characteristics of Patients Evaluated for Skin and Environmental Contamination During the 3 Study Periods
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Comparison of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci (VRE) Contamination on Health Care Workers' Hands During the 3 Study Periods
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Percentage of Environmental Surface Culture Specimens That Were Positive for Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci During the 3 Study Periods*

References

Bonten  MJSlaughter  SAmbergen  AW  et al.  The role of “colonization pressure” in the spread of vancomycin-resistant enterococci: an important infection control variable. Arch Intern Med 1998;1581127- 1132
PubMed Link to Article
Cepeda  JAWhitehouse  TCooper  B  et al.  Isolation of patients in single rooms or cohorts to reduce spread of MRSA in intensive-care units: prospective two-centre study. Lancet 2005;365295- 304
PubMed Link to Article
Kaul  AFJewett  JF Agents and techniques for disinfection of the skin. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1981;152677- 685
PubMed
Russell  ADDay  MJ Antibacterial activity of chlorhexidine. J Hosp Infect 1993;25229- 238
PubMed Link to Article
Lowbury  EJLilly  HA Use of 4 per cent chlorhexidine detergent solution (Hibiscrub) and other methods of skin disinfection. BMJ 1973;1510- 515
PubMed Link to Article
Hayek  LJEmerson  JM Preoperative whole body disinfection: a controlled clinical study. J Hosp Infect 1988;11 ((suppl B)) 15- 19
Link to Article
Garland  JSAlex  CPMueller  CD  et al.  A randomized trial comparing povidone-iodine to a chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated dressing for prevention of central venous catheter infections in neonates. Pediatrics 2001;1071431- 1436
PubMed Link to Article
Heasman  PAHeasman  LStacey  FMcCracken  GI Local delivery of chlorhexidine gluconate (PerioChip) in periodontal maintenance patients. J Clin Periodontol 2001;2890- 95
PubMed Link to Article
Wade  JJDesai  NCasewell  MW Hygienic hand disinfection for the removal of epidemic vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium and gentamicin-resistant Enterobacter cloacae. J Hosp Infect 1991;18211- 218
PubMed Link to Article
Bonten  MJHayden  MKNathan  C  et al.  Epidemiology of colonisation of patients and environment with vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Lancet 1996;3481615- 1619
PubMed Link to Article
Duckro  ANBlom  DWLyle  EAWeinstein  RAHayden  MK Transfer of vancomycin-resistant enterococci via health care worker hands. Arch Intern Med 2005;165302- 307
PubMed Link to Article
Blom  DWLyle  EAWeinstein  RAMeyer  PHayden  MK The relationship between environmental contamination with vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) and patient colonization in a medical intensive care unit.  Paper presented at: 40th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy September 17-20 2000 Toronto, Ontario
Trick  WEVernon  MOHayes  RA  et al.  Impact of ring wearing on hand contamination and comparison of hand hygiene agents in a hospital. Clin Infect Dis 2003;361383- 1390
PubMed Link to Article
Larson  ELStrom  MSEvans  CA Analysis of three variables in sampling solutions used to assay bacteria of hands: type of solution, use of antiseptic neutralizers, and solution temperature. J Clin Microbiol 1980;12355- 360
PubMed
National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Methods for Dilution Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria That Grows Aerobically. Document M7-A6. Wayne, Pa National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards2003;
Livingston  EHLee  S Percentage of burned body surface area determination in obese and nonobese patients. J Surg Res 2000;91106- 110
PubMed Link to Article
Tenorio  ARBadri  SMSahgal  NB  et al.  Effectiveness of gloves in the prevention of hand carriage of vancomycin-resistant enterococcus species by health care workers after patient care. Clin Infect Dis 2001;32826- 829
PubMed Link to Article
Efron  BTibshirani  RJ An Introduction to the Bootstrap.  New York, NY Chapman and Hall1993;
Rotter  ML Hand washing and hand disinfection. Mayhall  CG Hand washing and hand disinfection. Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pa Lippincott Williams and Wilkins1999;1339- 1355
Beezhold  DWSlaughter  SHayden  MK  et al.  Skin colonization with vancomycin-resistant enterococci among hospitalized patients with bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis 1997;24704- 706
PubMed Link to Article
Montecalvo  MAJarvis  WRUman  J  et al.  Infection-control measures reduce transmission of vancomycin-resistant enterococci in an endemic setting. Ann Intern Med 1999;131269- 272
PubMed Link to Article
Kaslow  RADixon  REMartin  SM  et al.  Staphylococcal disease related to hospital nursery bathing practices: a nationwide epidemiologic investigation. Pediatrics 1973;51418- 429
PubMed
Rohr  UMueller  CWilhelm  MMuhr  GGatermann  S Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus whole-body decolonization among hospitalized patients with variable site colonization by using mupirocin in combination with octenidine dihydrochloride. J Hosp Infect 2003;54305- 309
PubMed Link to Article
Leigh  DAStronge  JLMarriner  JSedgwick  J Total body bathing with “Hibiscrub” (chlorhexidine) in surgical patients: a controlled trial. J Hosp Infect 1983;4229- 235
PubMed Link to Article
Parras  FGuerrero  MCBouza  E  et al.  Comparative study of mupirocin and oral co-trimoxazole plus topical fusidic acid in eradication of nasal carriage of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995;39175- 179
PubMed Link to Article
Bartzokas  CAPaton  JHGibson  MFGraham  FMcLoughlin  GACroton  RS Control and eradication of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus on a surgical unit. N Engl J Med 1984;3111422- 1425
PubMed Link to Article
Borer  AGilad  JMegreleshvili  R  et al.  Prevalence and control of Acinetobacter baumannii (AB) skin colonization among medical intensive-care unit (MICU) patients.  Paper presented at: 43rd Annual Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy September 14-17, 2003 Chicago, Ill
Brady  LMThomson  MPalmer  MAHarkness  JL Successful control of endemic MRSA in a cardiothoracic surgical unit. Med J Aust 1990;152240- 245
PubMed
Tuffnell  DJCroton  RSHemingway  DMHartley  MNWake  PNGarvey  RJ Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus: the role of antisepsis in the control of an outbreak. J Hosp Infect 1987;10255- 259
PubMed Link to Article
Kampf  GKramer  A Eradication of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with an antiseptic soap and nasal mupirocin among colonized patients: an open uncontrolled clinical trial. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 2004;39
PubMed Link to Article
Sloot  NSiebert  JHoffler  U Eradication of MRSA from carriers by means of whole-body washing with an antiseptic in combination with mupirocin nasal ointment. Zentralbl Hyg Umweltmed 1999;202513- 523
PubMed
Okano  MNomura  MHata  S  et al.  Anaphylactic symptoms due to chlorhexidine gluconate. Arch Dermatol 1989;12550- 52
PubMed Link to Article
Evans  RJ Acute anaphylaxis due to topical chlorhexidine acetate. BMJ 1992;304686
PubMed Link to Article
Denton  GW Chlorhexidine. 5th ed. Philadelphia, Pa Lippincott Williams & Wilkins1993;

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 118

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles