Chlorhexidine Bathing in a Tertiary Care Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: Impact on Central Line–Associated Bloodstream Infections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite implementation of recommended best practices, our central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates remained high. Our objective was to describe the impact of chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) bathing on CLABSI rates in neonates. METHODS: Infants with a central venous catheter (CVC) admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit from April 2009 to March 2013 were included. Neonates with a birth weight of 1,000 g or less, aged less than 28 days, and those with a birth weight greater than 1,000 g were bathed with mild soap until March 31, 2012 (baseline), and with a 2% CHG-impregnated cloth starting on April 1, 2012 (intervention). Infants with a birth weight of 1,000 g or less, aged 28 days or more, were bathed with mild soap during the entire period. Neonatal intensive care unit nurses reported adverse events. Adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs), using Poisson regression, were calculated to compare CLABSIs/1,000 CVC-days during the baseline and intervention periods. RESULTS: Overall, 790 neonates with CVCs were included in the study. CLABSI rates decreased during the intervention period for CHG-bathed neonates (6.00 vs 1.92/1,000 CVC-days; aIRR, 0.33 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.15-0.73]) but remained unchanged for neonates with a birth rate of 1,000 g or less and aged less than 28 days who were not eligible for CHG bathing (8.57 vs 8.62/1,000 CVC-days; aIRR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.17-4.44]). Overall, 195 infants with a birth weight greater than 1,000 g and 24 infants with a birth weight of 1,000 g or less, aged 28 days or more, were bathed with CHG. There was no reported adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a decrease in CLABSI rates in CHG-bathed neonates in the absence of observed adverse events. CHG bathing should be considered if CLABSI rates remain high, despite the implementation of other recommended measures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".