Skip to main content

Table 2 Comparison of two types of CHG dressings

From: Sustained reduction of catheter-associated bloodstream infections with enhancement of catheter bundle by chlorhexidine dressings over 11 years

(a) Period C (sponge only) versus period E (gel only)
  All Period C sponge only Period E gel only Period E vs. period C
Catheter-day 56,477 26,128 30,349  
CABSI 25 18 7  
Incidence density rate of infection (95% CI) 0.44 (0.28–0.66) 0.69 (0.43–1.09) 0.23 (0.11–0.48) 0.019
CRBSI 14 11 3  
Incidence density rate of infection (95% CI) 0.25 (0.14–0.42) 0.42 (0.23–0.76) 0.10 (0.03–0.31) 0.018
Primary bacteremia 11 7 4  
Incidence density rate of infection (95% CI) 0.19 (0.10–0.35) 0.27 (0.13–0.56) 0.13 (0.05–0.35) 0.99
(b) CHG sponge vs. CHG gel (intervention 3, period D)
Period D only June 2011 to May 2013 All CHG sponge 18 beds CHG gel 14 beds Comparison of gel versus sponge
Catheter-day 36,689 20,807 15,882  
CABSI 11 9 2  
Incidence density rate of infection (95% CI) 0.30 (0.17–0.54) 0.43 (0.23–0.83) 0.13 (0.03–0.50) 0.059
CRBSI 6 4 2  
Incidence density rate of infection (95% CI) 0.16 (0.07–0.36) 0.19 (0.07–0.51) 0.13 (0.03–0.50) 0.49
Primary bacteremia 5 5 0  
Incidence density rate of infection (95% CI) 0.14 (0.06–0.33) 0.24 (0.10–0.58) Undefined < 0.001
  1. Infections (n) and incidence density rates of infections (episodes per 1000 catheter-days; 95% CI) by type of dressing