Efficacy and Safety of Three Antiseptics for Neonatal Skin Disinfection: a Cohort Study

Overview

Journal Pediatr Res

Specialties Biology
Pediatrics

Date 2024 Nov 8

PMID 39516574

Authors

Madhu Jagalasar

Kadiyala Meena

Giridhar Sethuraman

Priyadarshini Shanmugam

Usha Devi

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The choice of the ideal antiseptic is not only based on its efficacy but also on safety and skin-friendliness. There are no standard recommendations regarding ideal skin preparation in neonates.

Methods: This was a prospective cohort study to evaluate the efficacy of 3 antiseptics[10% Povidone Iodine(PI), 70% isopropyl alcohol(AL), 2% chlorhexidine in 70% alcohol(CHG-IPA)] in disinfecting the skin before venipuncture in term neonates as assessed by logarithmic reduction in skin bacterial colony counts post-application. Secondary objectives were to assess the changes in skin condition. Measurements were done pre-, post-antiseptic and 6-24 h (for residual effect) later. Fifty neonates were enrolled in each group.

Results: All three antiseptics caused a significant reduction in bacterial load post-application, but maximal efficacy [2.6(2.2-2.8)log reduction] and, maximal residual effect at 6-24 h was seen with CHG-IPA [2.4(2.2-2.6)log reduction]. The logarithmic reduction in colony counts from pre-intervention to 6-24 h later remained significant for all three groups [(PI, p-0.039; CHG-IPA, p-0.00; AL, p - 0.01)]. After an initial alteration in hydration, and skin condition score, there was a return to baseline after 6-24 h.

Conclusion(s): 2% CHG-IPA had better efficacy than AL or PI for skin antisepsis in term neonates. There was no significant change in skin integrity in all three groups.

Impact: All three antiseptics [2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol(CHG + IPA), 10% Povidone Iodine(PI), and 70% isopropyl alcohol(AL)] cause significant reduction in bacterial colony counts. CHG + IPA has the maximum efficacy as assessed by log reduction of bacterial colony counts with optimal residual effect favouring its usage in term neonates. The least efficacy is seen with 70% isopropyl alcohol. All three antiseptics are skin-friendly and do not affect the skin integrity. Future studies addressing the clinical outcomes and safety in preterm populations with these commonly used antiseptics should be done.

References

Sathiyamurthy S, Banerjee J, Godambe S . Antiseptic use in the neonatal intensive care unit - a dilemma in clinical practice: An evidence based review. World J Clin Pediatr. 2016; 5(2):159-71. PMC: 4857229. DOI: 10.5409/wjcp.v5.i2.159. View

Linder N, Davidovitch N, Reichman B, Kuint J, Lubin D, Meyerovitch J . Topical iodine-containing antiseptics and subclinical hypothyroidism in preterm infants. J Pediatr. 1997; 131(3):434-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3476(97)80071-6. View

Lund C, Osborne J . Validity and reliability of the neonatal skin condition score. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2004; 33(3):320-7. DOI: 10.1177/0884217504265174. View

Horimukai K, Morita K, Narita M, Kondo M, Kitazawa H, Nozaki M . Application of moisturizer to neonates prevents development of atopic dermatitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014; 134(4):824-830.e6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2014.07.060. View

Gustin J, Bohman L, Ogle J, Chaudhary T, Li L, Fadayel G . Use of an emollient-containing diaper and pH-buffered wipe regimen restores skin pH and reduces residual enzymatic activity. Pediatr Dermatol. 2020; 37(4):626-631. PMC: 7496339. DOI: 10.1111/pde.14169. View

Gustin J, Bohman L, Ogle J, Fadayel G, Mitchell M, Narendran V . Improving newborn skin health: Effects of diaper care regimens on skin pH and erythema. Pediatr Dermatol. 2021; 38(4):768-774. PMC: 8453578. DOI: 10.1111/pde.14602. View

Visscher M, Carr A, Narendran V . Premature infant skin barrier maturation: status at full-term corrected age. J Perinatol. 2020; 41(2):232-239. DOI: 10.1038/s41372-020-0704-3. View

Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang A . Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009; 41(4):1149-60. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149. View

McCord H, Fieldhouse E, El-Naggar W . Current Practices of Antiseptic Use in Canadian Neonatal Intensive Care Units. Am J Perinatol. 2018; 36(2):141-147. DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1661406. View

10.

Tamma P, Aucott S, Milstone A . Chlorhexidine use in the neonatal intensive care unit: results from a national survey. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010; 31(8):846-9. PMC: 2900383. DOI: 10.1086/655017. View

11.

Taylor J, McDonald S, Tan K . A survey of central venous catheter practices in Australian and New Zealand tertiary neonatal units. Aust Crit Care. 2013; 27(1):36-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.aucc.2013.11.002. View

12.

Fraser C, Harron K, Dalton L, Gilbert R, Oddie S . Variation in infection prevention practices for peripherally inserted central venous catheters: A survey of neonatal units in England and Wales. PLoS One. 2018; 13(11):e0204894. PMC: 6211675. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204894. View

13.

Shah D, Tracy M . Skin antisepsis survey in Australia-New Zealand neonatal nurseries. J Paediatr Child Health. 2013; 49(7):601-2. DOI: 10.1111/jpc.12274. View

14.

Malathi I, Millar M, Leeming J, Hedges A, Marlow N . Skin disinfection in preterm infants. Arch Dis Child. 1993; 69(3 Spec No):312-6. PMC: 1029500. DOI: 10.1136/adc.69.3_spec_no.312. View

15.

Nuntnarumit P, Sangsuksawang N . A randomized controlled trial of 1% aqueous chlorhexidine gluconate compared with 10% povidone-iodine for topical antiseptic in neonates: effects on blood culture contamination rates. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2013; 34(4):430-2. DOI: 10.1086/669863. View

16.

Garland J, Buck R, MALONEY P, Durkin D, Duffy M, Szocik P . Comparison of 10% povidone-iodine and 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate for the prevention of peripheral intravenous catheter colonization in neonates: a prospective trial. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1995; 14(6):510-6. DOI: 10.1097/00006454-199506000-00008. View

17.

Reichel M, Heisig P, Kohlmann T, Kampf G . Alcohols for skin antisepsis at clinically relevant skin sites. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009; 53(11):4778-82. PMC: 2772323. DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00582-09. View

18.

Hibbard J . Analyses comparing the antimicrobial activity and safety of current antiseptic agents: a review. J Infus Nurs. 2005; 28(3):194-207. DOI: 10.1097/00129804-200505000-00008. View

19.

Garland J, Alex C, MUELLER C, Otten D, Shivpuri C, Harris M . A randomized trial comparing povidone-iodine to a chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated dressing for prevention of central venous catheter infections in neonates. Pediatrics. 2001; 107(6):1431-6. DOI: 10.1542/peds.107.6.1431. View

20.

Neri I, Ravaioli G, Faldella G, Capretti M, Arcuri S, Patrizi A . Chlorhexidine-Induced Chemical Burns in Very Low Birth Weight Infants. J Pediatr. 2017; 191:262-265.e2. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.08.002. View