Adding vortexing to the Maki technique provides no benefit for the diagnosis of catheter colonization or catheter-related bacteremia.

Abstract

A previous study compared vortexing and Maki techniques for the diagnosis of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), and concluded that vortexing was not superior to Maki method. To determine whether the combined use of vortexing and Maki techniques provides profitability versus the Maki technique for the diagnosis of catheter tip colonization (CTC) and CRBSI. Observational and prospective study carried out in an Intensive Care Unit. Patients with suspected catheter-related infection (CRI) and with one central venous catheter for at least 7 days were included. The area under the curve (AUC) of the Maki technique, the vortexing technique and the combination of both techniques for the diagnosis of CTC and CRBSI were compared. We included 136 episodes of suspected CRI. We found 21 cases of CTC of which 10 were also CRBSI cases. Of the 21 CTC episodes, 18 (85.7%) were diagnosed by Maki technique and vortexing technique, 3 (14.3%) only by the technique of Maki, and none only by technique of vortexing. Of the 10 CRBSI episodes, 9 (90.0%) were diagnosed by the techniques of Maki and vortexing, 1 (10.0%) was diagnosed only by the technique of Maki, and none only by the technique of vortexing. We no found differences in the comparison of AUC between the technique of Maki and the combination of Maki and vortexing techniques for the diagnosis of CTC (P = 0.99) and CRBSI (P = 0.99). The novel finding of our study was that the combined use of vortexing and Maki techniques did not provide profitability to the technique of Maki alone to CRBSI diagnosis of.