1998
DOI: 10.1097/00000542-199811000-00060
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Severe Anaphylactic Reaction Due to a Chlorhexidine-impregnated Central Venous Catheter 

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
23
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 49 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Clinical features of tachycardia, hypotension and erythematous skin were reported in at least three cases in the literature in relation to insertion of chlorhexidine based central line [3,6,7]. Bronchospasm was not a prominent feature in these cases, it is only featured in 43% of patients [6].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Clinical features of tachycardia, hypotension and erythematous skin were reported in at least three cases in the literature in relation to insertion of chlorhexidine based central line [3,6,7]. Bronchospasm was not a prominent feature in these cases, it is only featured in 43% of patients [6].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…But in general, the prophylactic use of antibiotic-coated implants increases the risk of producing resistant strains of bacteria, while the use of other kinds of antibacterial compounds (antiseptics) provides inferior results in comparison to the use of clinical antibiotics. Antiseptic-based coatings have also been associated with reports of anaphylactic shock [2][3][4]. Lantibiotics are antibiotic compounds that include one or more lanthionine rings.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One is the possibility of allergic reactions to the antimicrobial agentda potential complication that has been reported in some cases. [18][19][20][21] Another is the potential risk of developing antimicrobial resistance to the agent used in impregnated catheters. 22,23 Although in our study no adverse events were identified, the sample size is likely too small to draw any conclusions about adverse events.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%