Skip to content

Study of Chlorhexidine as the Hub Antiseptic to Prevent Catheter Related Infections in Newborn Infants

Chlorhexidine and the Prevention of Central Catheter Related Infections in Neonates

Status
UNKNOWN
Phases
Phase 4
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT00516360
Enrollment
150
Registered
2007-08-15
Start date
2007-07-31
Completion date
2008-08-31
Last updated
2008-05-30

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Catheterization

Keywords

Catheter related bloodstream infections, Infant, Newborn, Intensive Care Units, Neonatal, Neonatal Central Line Infections

Brief summary

The purpose of this study is to prevent catheter-related infections in newborn infants admitted to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). This study will compare the effectiveness of daily chlorhexidine versus isopropyl alcohol in preventing the growth of microbes in catheters.

Detailed description

Catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in infants admitted to the NICU. In adults, chlorhexidine used as a skin antiseptic has been shown to reduce the incidence of CRBSIs, and recent evidence indicates the inner surface of long-term central catheters as the likely route of infection. This study will evaluate 3.15% chlorhexidine as the daily catheter hub antiseptic to reduce catheter tip microbial colonization, an indication of high risk for acquiring CRBSI. The purpose of this study is to compare the antiseptic capability of 3.15% chlorhexidine versus isopropyl alcohol in reducing central catheter-related infections in neonates. This study also aims to compare the time to catheter hub microbial colonization in the two groups and to determine the route of catheter tip colonization by comparing cultures taken from the catheter tip, hub, and skin insertion site. This study will last 1 year. There are no study visits. The placement and removal of the catheter will be determined by the discretion of the attendant caring for the participant. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of two groups. Catheters of Group 1 participants will be treated with 3.15% chlorhexidine at the time of the daily intravenous tubing change. Catheters of Group 2 participants will be treated with isopropyl alcohol. For both groups, cultures of the inner surface of the catheter hub will be performed twice a week, and cultures of the inner surface of the catheter hub, tip, and skin insertion site will be performed upon removal of the catheter.

Interventions

DEVICE3.15% chlorhexidine as daily antiseptic on needleless access port

3.15% chlorhexidine as daily antiseptic on needleless access port. 1 wipe used to cleanse port each time the port is accessed

Sponsors

University of Rochester
CollaboratorOTHER
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
Lead SponsorNIH

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
No minimum to 6 Months
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Admitted to the NICU * Umbilical vein catheter or peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC) anticipated to be in place for more than 48 hours * Parent or guardian able to give informed consent prior to first hyperalimentation and total parenteral nutrition tubing change

Exclusion criteria

* Known CRBSI-positive blood culture at the time of catheter line placement. * Not expected to survive for more than 48 hours * Broviac or any other surgically-placed central catheters * Any condition that, as determined by the investigator, would interfere with evaluation of the line or be a potential health risk to the participant

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Catheter tip microbial colonizationat the time of catheter removal

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Time to hub microbial colonizationat the time of catheter removal
Route of catheter tip microbial colonization determined by cultures taken at the catheter hub versus skinat the time of catheter removal

Countries

United States

Contacts

Primary ContactErik S. Thingvoll, MD
erik_thingvoll@urmc.rochester.edu585-275-1847

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026