The GDG noted that antiseptic-coated CVCs should be preferably used in specific patient populations, such as immunocompromised, obese, burn and transplant patients, patients with limited venous access and a history of recurrent CLABSI, and patients at risk of severe sequelae from a CLABSI, (for example, patients with recently implanted intravascular devices such as a prosthetic heart valve or aortic graft).

• The impact on AMR was judged less problematic than for antibiotic-impregnated catheters, hence the difference in recommendations between antibiotic- and antiseptic-coated catheters.
• The GDG also noted that most of these catheters last a maximum of 21 days and therefore they should not be used when there is a need for a long-term catheter.
• As for the previous recommendation, the GDG specifically requested the performance of a systematic review on the cost-effectiveness of using antiseptic-coated catheters. Upon evaluation of the results, the GDG acknowledged that most of the cost-effectiveness studies were performed in HICs (apart one study (235)) and the affordability and clinical impact of these catheters in LMICs have yet to be fully assessed.
• It was also noted that many studies were performed in settings with high CLABSI rates. Thus, antiseptic-coated catheters may not provide any additional benefit in clinical settings that have already demonstrated a low incidence of catheter infections. Additionally, most studies were conducted several years ago.
• Similar to antibiotic-impregnated catheters, many studies were performed before infection preventive bundles were routine. Whether antiseptic-coated catheters have an impact on CLABSI in such settings remains unknown.
• Health care facilities with high CLABSI rates should first consider the implementation and compliance with the other recommendations present in these guidelines before considering the adoption of antiseptic-coated catheters.
• Patients should be monitored for adverse events and potential allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis.