Cited by 370Infection Control in HealthcareAntimicrobial agents and applicationsAntibiotic Resistance in Bacteria

Acquired resistance to chlorhexidine - is it time to establish an 'antiseptic stewardship' initiative?

Kampf, G.·2016·Journal of Hospital Infection

Abstract

Chlorhexidine digluconate (CHG) is an antimicrobial agent used for different types of applications in hand hygiene, skin antisepsis, oral care, and patient washing. Increasing use raises concern regarding development of acquired bacterial resistance. Published data from clinical isolates with CHG minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were reviewed and compared to epidemiological cut-off values to determine resistance. CHG resistance is rarely found in Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp., Staphylococcus aureus or coagulase-negative staphylococci. In Enterobacter spp., Pseudomonas spp., Proteus spp., Providencia spp. and Enterococcus spp., however, isolates are more often CHG resistant. CHG resistance may be detected in multi-resistant isolates such as extremely drug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae. Isolates with a higher MIC are often less susceptible to CHG for disinfection. Although cross-resistance to antibiotics remains controversial, some studies indicate that the overall exposure to CHG increases the risk for resistance to some antibiotic agents. Resistance to CHG has resulted in numerous outbreaks and healthcare-associated infections. On an average intensive care unit, most of the CHG exposure would be explained by hand hygiene agents when liquid soaps or alcohol-based hand rubs contain CHG. Exposure to sub-lethal CHG concentration may enhance resistance in Acinetobacter spp., K. pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas spp., all species well known for emerging antibiotic resistance. In order to reduce additional selection pressure in nosocomial pathogens it seems to make sense to restrict the valuable agent CHG to those indications with a clear patient benefit and to eliminate it from applications without any benefit or with a doubtful benefit.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jhin.2016.08.018

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kampf, G.
Affiliations
Universität Greifswald (DE)
Corresponding author
Kampf, G.
Venue
Journal of Hospital Infection
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-11
Volume
94
Issue
3
Pages
213-227
ISSN
0195-6701 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2517595764
Cited by
370
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 54 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 3
FWCI
5.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Hospital Infection (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Infection Control in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Organic Chemistry › Antimicrobial agents and applications
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Medicine › Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
Keywords
chlorhexidine resistance, chlorhexidine gluconate, hand hygiene, skin antisepsis, oral care, minimum inhibitory concentration, epidemiological cut-off values, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter, Pseudomonas, cross-resistance, nosocomial infections, nosocomial pathogens, intensive care unit
MeSH terms
Anti-Infective Agents, Local, Antisepsis, Bacteria, Chlorhexidine, Drug Utilization, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Drug Resistance, Bacterial

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review