Vascular Catheter Site Care: The Clinical and Economic Benefits of Chlorhexidine Gluconate Compared with Povidone Iodine
Author(s) -
Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk,
David L. Veenstra,
Benjamin A. Lipsky,
Sean D. Sullivan,
Sanjay Saint
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
clinical infectious diseases
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.44
H-Index - 336
eISSN - 1537-6591
pISSN - 1058-4838
DOI - 10.1086/377265
Subject(s) - medicine , chlorhexidine , catheter , chlorhexidine gluconate , iodine , incidence (geometry) , randomized controlled trial , surgery , intensive care medicine , dentistry , materials science , physics , optics , metallurgy
The use of chlorhexidine gluconate solution for vascular catheter insertion site care reduces the risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection by one-half, compared with povidone iodine. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of chlorhexidine gluconate versus povidone iodine. We used data from randomized, controlled trials, meta-analyses, and epidemiologic studies to construct a decision analysis model. We estimated that use of chlorhexidine, rather than povidone, for central catheter site care resulted in a 1.6% decrease in the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infection, a 0.23% decrease in the incidence of death, and savings of 113 dollars per catheter used. For peripheral catheter site care, the results were similar, although the differences were smaller. The results were found to be robust on multivariate sensitivity analyses. Use of chlorhexidine gluconate in place of the current standard solution for vascular catheter site care is a simple and cost-effective method of improving patient safety in the hospital setting.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom