A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Skin disinfection before epidural catheterization: comparative study of povidone-iodine versus chlorhexidine ethanol. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • Chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine were compared for skin preparation before epidural catheter insertion in patients, with a focus on reducing bacterial colonization.
  • A total of 62 patients participated, with no significant differences in microbial colonization between the two groups: 25% for povidone-iodine and 24% for chlorhexidine at the insertion site.
  • Overall, the study concluded that chlorhexidine is not superior to povidone-iodine in preventing bacterial colonization during short-term epidural catheter use.

Article Abstract

Background: Chlorhexidine is better than povidone-iodine for skin preparation before intravascular device insertion or blood culture collection, but it is not known whether chlorhexidine is superior in reducing the colonization of continuous epidural catheters.

Methods: Patients requiring an epidural catheter for postoperative analgesia were randomly assigned to receive skin preparation with 0.5% chlorhexidine ethanol (CE group) or 10% povidone-iodine (PI group) before catheter insertion. Using surgical aseptic techniques, catheters were inserted into either the lumbar or the thoracic epidural space. Gloves used at catheter insertion, swabs of insertion site skin and the catheter tip at catheter removal were qualitatively cultured.

Results: Of 70 randomly assigned patients, 62 were evaluable. The clinical characteristics of the patients and the risk factors for infection were similar in the two groups. Catheters were kept in place for 49 +/- 7 h (mean +/- SD). Seven cultures from gloves yielded microorganisms. In 1 case, the leak test of gloves was positive. Fifteen cultures of catheter insertion sites yielded microorganisms: 7/28 (25%) in the PI group and 8/34 (24%) in the CE group. Six cultures of catheter tips yielded microorganisms: 3/28 (11%) in the PI group and 3/34 (9%) in the CE group. As for the incidence of isolation of bacteria, no difference was seen between the two groups. In none of these 62 cases was any inflammatory reaction seen in the skin locally at catheter removal.

Conclusions: The effect of 0.5% chlorhexidine ethanol is not different from that of 10% povidone-iodine in reducing catheter colonization associated with short-term epidural catheter placement.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000057724DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

chlorhexidine ethanol
12
catheter insertion
12
yielded microorganisms
12
catheter
10
skin preparation
8
epidural catheter
8
randomly assigned
8
05% chlorhexidine
8
10% povidone-iodine
8
cultures catheter
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!