Premium
Prevention of neonatal infections by vaginal chlorhexidine disinfection during labour
Author(s) -
Henrichsen T,
Lindemann R,
Svenningsen L,
Hjelle K
Publication year - 1994
Publication title -
acta pædiatrica
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.772
H-Index - 115
eISSN - 1651-2227
pISSN - 0803-5253
DOI - 10.1111/j.1651-2227.1994.tb13172.x
Subject(s) - medicine , chlorhexidine , obstetrics , antibiotics , intravaginal administration , vagina , gynecology , surgery , dentistry , microbiology and biotechnology , biology
Comparison of two different methods of vaginal disinfection was made with regard to prevention Of neonatal infections. In method I, an antepartum vaginal douche with a chlorhexidine solution was used; method II involved the use of chlorhexidine gluconate obstetrical gel during vaginal exploration. We studied 2853 normal deliveries from a total number of 3236 deliveries: 1467 deliveries were allocated randomly to receive a vaginal douche whereas 1386 underwent vaginal exploration using chlorhexidine gel. A total of 203 neonates were transferred to the neonatal unit (120 males and 83 females): 101 belonged to the group where the mothers were subjected to method I, whereas in 102 method II had been used. Within 48 h postpartum 30 neonates from the method I group and 34 neonates from the method II group received systemic antibiotics. There was a tendency towards a higher proportion of full‐term neonates with verified septicaemia in the method II group (6 versus 2), whereas the numbers of probable infections were 8 versus 12. The corresponding total numbers in preterm infants were 3 and 2, respectively. These differences were not statistically significant. We conclude that the use of chlorhexidine douche compared with vaginal exploration with chlorhexidine gel provides no additional advantages.