Abstract

Background: Peripheral venous catheters (PVC) have a lower risk of the infection than central venous catheters (CVC), however, their high frequency of use makes PVC a major problem. Nowadays, there is no consensus regarding the diagnosis of PVC infections and current recommendations are not only utopian but can lead to an underestimation of infection rates. Objectives: To compare the incidence of bacterial colonization and CRI. To identify the significant bacterial colonization in CRI, as well as the main pathogens causing bacterial colonization and CRI in long-term PVC. Material and methods: Nurse-driven, randomized controlled trial to compare closed system (COS) versus open system (MOS), where catheters were removal only by clinical-indication and were inserted and maintained in accordance with CDC guidelines, except those that apply to routine replacement recommendations. The blinded Maki’s semiquantitative culture technique was used. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00665886). Results: A total of 1183 catheters (631 patients) were randomized, 584 in the COS group (54,173 catheter-hours recorded), and 599 in the MOS group (50,296). 283 PVC were cultured, i.e. 24% of the sample. The mean in-dwell time to onset of event of COS was 239.5 hours compared to 171.9 with MOS. No significant difference in cumulative incidence or incidence density rates per 1000 catheter-days for bacterial colonization, and no statistical significance were found between rates of CRI (COS, 2.2%; MOS, 2.5%). However, we observed a 22% relative risk reduction (RRR) in CRI with COS. Of the 283 cultures, 21.9% were positive, of which the 46.8% were in COS and 53.2% in MOS. There were no significant differences between microorganisms isolated, number of colonies or type of germ. Staphylococcus was responsible for 80.3% of the colonization, and 85.7% of CRI. S. epidermidis was responsible for 48.8% of colonization and 52.4% of CRI. S. aureus was isolated in two cases (9.5%), one in each group. Discussion: As in previous studies, despite a reduction in the incidence of CRI in closed system, the difference did not reach statistical significance. Nine CRI registered in COS were caused by Gram + (100%), while in MOS 9 CRI were recorded by Gram + (75%), 2 by Gram - (16.7%) and one by Candida (8.3%). Our data seems to confirm that bacteria isolated from closed systems are less virulent and/or that these systems may offer protection against CRI. Conclusion: International guidelines for best clinical practice should differentiate CRI from CRBSI in the management of peripheral lines-related infections. No statistical differences exist between rates of CRI. However, there is a RRR of CRI with closed systems. A total of 29% of the catheter cultured were associated with CRI (26.5% in COS, 31.3% in MOS), suggesting less virulence of the bacteria isolated in closed systems or greater protection offered by such systems. In long-term PVC, staphylococci causes 80% of colonizations, and 100% of CRI in closed systems and while only 75% in open. There were no significant differences between isolated bacteria, the number of colonies or the type of pathogen.

Highlights

  • Peripheral venous catheters (PVC) have a lower risk of the infection than central venous catheters (CVC), their high frequency of use makes PVC a major problem.Nowadays, there is no consensus regarding the diagnosis of PVC infections and current recommendations are utopian but can lead to an underestimation of infection rates

  • No significant difference in cumulative incidence or incidence density rates per 1000 catheter-days for bacterial colonization, and no statistical significance were found between rates of Catheter-related infections (CRI) (COS, 2.2%; MOS, 2.5%)

  • Spanish data from the program of surveillance of infections in patients admitted to critical care units (ICU) shows 6-8 bacteremias/1000 catheter days, of which 10% of cases were attributable to peripheral venous catheters (PVC)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Peripheral venous catheters (PVC) have a lower risk of the infection than central venous catheters (CVC), their high frequency of use makes PVC a major problem.Nowadays, there is no consensus regarding the diagnosis of PVC infections and current recommendations are utopian but can lead to an underestimation of infection rates. Peripheral venous catheters (PVC) have a lower risk of the infection than central venous catheters (CVC), their high frequency of use makes PVC a major problem. IVD are currently the most important independent cause of nosocomial infection in the health care sector [1,2]. Catheter-related infections (CRI) are the leading cause of primary septicemia with a high prevalence leading to increased hospital stays and costs. They carry a 3% mortality [3]. Spanish data from the program of surveillance of infections in patients admitted to critical care units (ICU) shows 6-8 bacteremias/1000 catheter days, of which 10% of cases were attributable to peripheral venous catheters (PVC).

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.