Impact of chlorhexidine gluconate intolerance on driveline infection during chronic heartmate II left ventricular assist device support

Andre Y. Son, Louis H. Stein, Abelardo DeAnda, Stuart D. Katz, Deane E. Smith, Alex Reyentovich, Leora B. Balsam

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Driveline exit site (DLES) management following left ventricular assist device implantation is important for preventing driveline infection (DLI). While chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) is generally recommended for DLES antisepsis, CHG intolerance can develop, resulting in a need for alternative antiseptics. We reviewed our institutional experience with DLES antisepsis methods in HeartMate II patients, comparing outcomes of patients with and without CHG intolerance. Methods: Between October 2011 and March 2016, 44 patients underwent primary HeartMate II implantation. CHG was used for DLES antisepsis and povidone-iodine (PVP-I) was used in patients with CHG intolerance. DLI was defined by Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) criteria. Results: Of 44 patients, 37 (84%) received CHG and 7 (16%) received PVP-I antisepsis due to CHG intolerance. Five patients (11.4%) developed a DLI, with an event per patient-year rate of 0.07. Median length of support was 521 days (interquartile range 202-881 days). Characteristics were similar between patients with and without DLI. However, a larger proportion of patients with DLI had CHG intolerance compared to patients without DLI (60.0% vs. 10.3%, p<0.05). Causative organisms were Staphylococcus aureus in CHG-intolerant patients and Stenotrophomonas and Acinetobacter in CHG-tolerant patients. Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test demonstrated decreased infection-free days in patients using PVP-I rather than CHG (p<0.01). Conclusions: While the etiology of DLI is multifactorial, CHG intolerance appears to be a risk factor. Our findings highlight the need for larger studies comparing the efficacy of antiseptics for DLES care, particularly for patients with CHG contraindications.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)570-574
Number of pages5
JournalInternational Journal of Artificial Organs
Volume39
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2016

Fingerprint

Left ventricular assist devices
Heart-Assist Devices
Iodine
Infection
Antisepsis
Povidone-Iodine
Local Anti-Infective Agents
chlorhexidine gluconate
Stenotrophomonas
Acinetobacter

Keywords

  • Antiseptic
  • Chlorhexidine gluconate
  • Driveline infection
  • Left ventricular assist device

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Bioengineering
  • Biomaterials
  • Biomedical Engineering

Cite this

Impact of chlorhexidine gluconate intolerance on driveline infection during chronic heartmate II left ventricular assist device support. / Son, Andre Y.; Stein, Louis H.; DeAnda, Abelardo; Katz, Stuart D.; Smith, Deane E.; Reyentovich, Alex; Balsam, Leora B.

In: International Journal of Artificial Organs, Vol. 39, No. 11, 01.11.2016, p. 570-574.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Son, Andre Y. ; Stein, Louis H. ; DeAnda, Abelardo ; Katz, Stuart D. ; Smith, Deane E. ; Reyentovich, Alex ; Balsam, Leora B. / Impact of chlorhexidine gluconate intolerance on driveline infection during chronic heartmate II left ventricular assist device support. In: International Journal of Artificial Organs. 2016 ; Vol. 39, No. 11. pp. 570-574.
@article{e600091f7a98442fa3f5f0b826098227,
title = "Impact of chlorhexidine gluconate intolerance on driveline infection during chronic heartmate II left ventricular assist device support",
abstract = "Purpose: Driveline exit site (DLES) management following left ventricular assist device implantation is important for preventing driveline infection (DLI). While chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) is generally recommended for DLES antisepsis, CHG intolerance can develop, resulting in a need for alternative antiseptics. We reviewed our institutional experience with DLES antisepsis methods in HeartMate II patients, comparing outcomes of patients with and without CHG intolerance. Methods: Between October 2011 and March 2016, 44 patients underwent primary HeartMate II implantation. CHG was used for DLES antisepsis and povidone-iodine (PVP-I) was used in patients with CHG intolerance. DLI was defined by Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) criteria. Results: Of 44 patients, 37 (84{\%}) received CHG and 7 (16{\%}) received PVP-I antisepsis due to CHG intolerance. Five patients (11.4{\%}) developed a DLI, with an event per patient-year rate of 0.07. Median length of support was 521 days (interquartile range 202-881 days). Characteristics were similar between patients with and without DLI. However, a larger proportion of patients with DLI had CHG intolerance compared to patients without DLI (60.0{\%} vs. 10.3{\%}, p<0.05). Causative organisms were Staphylococcus aureus in CHG-intolerant patients and Stenotrophomonas and Acinetobacter in CHG-tolerant patients. Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test demonstrated decreased infection-free days in patients using PVP-I rather than CHG (p<0.01). Conclusions: While the etiology of DLI is multifactorial, CHG intolerance appears to be a risk factor. Our findings highlight the need for larger studies comparing the efficacy of antiseptics for DLES care, particularly for patients with CHG contraindications.",
keywords = "Antiseptic, Chlorhexidine gluconate, Driveline infection, Left ventricular assist device",
author = "Son, {Andre Y.} and Stein, {Louis H.} and Abelardo DeAnda and Katz, {Stuart D.} and Smith, {Deane E.} and Alex Reyentovich and Balsam, {Leora B.}",
year = "2016",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.5301/ijao.5000539",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "39",
pages = "570--574",
journal = "International Journal of Artificial Organs",
issn = "0391-3988",
publisher = "Wichtig Publishing",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Impact of chlorhexidine gluconate intolerance on driveline infection during chronic heartmate II left ventricular assist device support

AU - Son, Andre Y.

AU - Stein, Louis H.

AU - DeAnda, Abelardo

AU - Katz, Stuart D.

AU - Smith, Deane E.

AU - Reyentovich, Alex

AU - Balsam, Leora B.

PY - 2016/11/1

Y1 - 2016/11/1

N2 - Purpose: Driveline exit site (DLES) management following left ventricular assist device implantation is important for preventing driveline infection (DLI). While chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) is generally recommended for DLES antisepsis, CHG intolerance can develop, resulting in a need for alternative antiseptics. We reviewed our institutional experience with DLES antisepsis methods in HeartMate II patients, comparing outcomes of patients with and without CHG intolerance. Methods: Between October 2011 and March 2016, 44 patients underwent primary HeartMate II implantation. CHG was used for DLES antisepsis and povidone-iodine (PVP-I) was used in patients with CHG intolerance. DLI was defined by Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) criteria. Results: Of 44 patients, 37 (84%) received CHG and 7 (16%) received PVP-I antisepsis due to CHG intolerance. Five patients (11.4%) developed a DLI, with an event per patient-year rate of 0.07. Median length of support was 521 days (interquartile range 202-881 days). Characteristics were similar between patients with and without DLI. However, a larger proportion of patients with DLI had CHG intolerance compared to patients without DLI (60.0% vs. 10.3%, p<0.05). Causative organisms were Staphylococcus aureus in CHG-intolerant patients and Stenotrophomonas and Acinetobacter in CHG-tolerant patients. Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test demonstrated decreased infection-free days in patients using PVP-I rather than CHG (p<0.01). Conclusions: While the etiology of DLI is multifactorial, CHG intolerance appears to be a risk factor. Our findings highlight the need for larger studies comparing the efficacy of antiseptics for DLES care, particularly for patients with CHG contraindications.

AB - Purpose: Driveline exit site (DLES) management following left ventricular assist device implantation is important for preventing driveline infection (DLI). While chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) is generally recommended for DLES antisepsis, CHG intolerance can develop, resulting in a need for alternative antiseptics. We reviewed our institutional experience with DLES antisepsis methods in HeartMate II patients, comparing outcomes of patients with and without CHG intolerance. Methods: Between October 2011 and March 2016, 44 patients underwent primary HeartMate II implantation. CHG was used for DLES antisepsis and povidone-iodine (PVP-I) was used in patients with CHG intolerance. DLI was defined by Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) criteria. Results: Of 44 patients, 37 (84%) received CHG and 7 (16%) received PVP-I antisepsis due to CHG intolerance. Five patients (11.4%) developed a DLI, with an event per patient-year rate of 0.07. Median length of support was 521 days (interquartile range 202-881 days). Characteristics were similar between patients with and without DLI. However, a larger proportion of patients with DLI had CHG intolerance compared to patients without DLI (60.0% vs. 10.3%, p<0.05). Causative organisms were Staphylococcus aureus in CHG-intolerant patients and Stenotrophomonas and Acinetobacter in CHG-tolerant patients. Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test demonstrated decreased infection-free days in patients using PVP-I rather than CHG (p<0.01). Conclusions: While the etiology of DLI is multifactorial, CHG intolerance appears to be a risk factor. Our findings highlight the need for larger studies comparing the efficacy of antiseptics for DLES care, particularly for patients with CHG contraindications.

KW - Antiseptic

KW - Chlorhexidine gluconate

KW - Driveline infection

KW - Left ventricular assist device

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85010430879&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85010430879&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.5301/ijao.5000539

DO - 10.5301/ijao.5000539

M3 - Article

VL - 39

SP - 570

EP - 574

JO - International Journal of Artificial Organs

JF - International Journal of Artificial Organs

SN - 0391-3988

IS - 11

ER -