> Detailanzeige

Teschner, Daniel; Berisha, Mirjeta; Panse, Jens; Schmitt, Timo; Fiegle, Eva; Naendrup, Jan‐Hendrik; Neitz, Julia; Schmidt‐Hieber, Martin; Hentrich, Marcus; Böll, Boris; Schalk, Enrico

Chlorhexidine gluconate‐coated gel pad dressings for prevention of central venous catheter‐related bloodstream infections in patients with hematologic diseases or autologous stem cell transplantation: A registry‐based matched‐pair analysis

Literatur-
verwaltung

Zur
Merkliste

Lösche von
Merkliste

Per Whatsapp teilen

Schließen

Merkliste



Sie können Bookmarks mittels Listen verwalten, loggen Sie sich dafür bitte in Ihr SLUB Benutzerkonto ein.
  • Medientyp: E-Artikel
  • Titel: Chlorhexidine gluconate‐coated gel pad dressings for prevention of central venous catheter‐related bloodstream infections in patients with hematologic diseases or autologous stem cell transplantation: A registry‐based matched‐pair analysis
  • Beteiligte: Teschner, Daniel; Berisha, Mirjeta; Panse, Jens; Schmitt, Timo; Fiegle, Eva; Naendrup, Jan‐Hendrik; Neitz, Julia; Schmidt‐Hieber, Martin; Hentrich, Marcus; Böll, Boris; Schalk, Enrico
  • Erschienen: Wiley, 2023
  • Erschienen in: European Journal of Haematology, 111 (2023) 6, Seite 914-921
  • Sprache: Englisch
  • DOI: 10.1111/ejh.14098
  • ISSN: 0902-4441; 1600-0609
  • Schlagwörter: Hematology ; General Medicine
  • Entstehung:
  • Anmerkungen:
  • Beschreibung: <jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Objectives</jats:title><jats:p>Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG)‐coated gel pad dressings for central venous catheter (CVC) may prevent CVC‐related bloodstream infections (CRBSI). However, real‐world data showing beneficial effects in patients with hematologic malignancies are scarce.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>In a matched‐pair analysis with data from a multicenter CVC registry, non‐tunneled jugular and subclavian vein CVC in adults with hematologic malignancies or germ cell tumors (including patients receiving autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation [ASCT]) with CHG were compared with non‐CHG dressings. The primary endpoint was <jats:italic>definite</jats:italic> CRBSI rate within 14 days (dCRBSI14) of CVC insertion; secondary endpoints were combined rate of <jats:italic>definite</jats:italic> or <jats:italic>probable</jats:italic> CRBSI within 14 days (dpCRBSI14), overall (dpCRBSI), and CRBSI incidences of all estimates.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>In total, 2070 CVCs were assessed. There was no statistically significant difference in dCRBSI14 (2.3% vs. 3.5%) between patients with and without CHG gel dressings. Likewise, with regards to dpCRBSI14 (6.2% vs. 6.3%) and the overall dpCRBSI rate (9.2% vs. 10.5%), no significant difference was detected. Furthermore, dCRBSI14 incidence (2.0 vs. 3.2/1000 CVC days), dpCRBSI14 incidence (5.4 vs. 5.6/1000 CVC days), and overall CRBSI incidence (5.5 vs. 6.0/1000 CVC days) showed no significant differences.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p>CRBSI rates were not reduced by the use of CHG gel dressings in patients with hematologic malignancies and/or ASCT.</jats:p></jats:sec>