The Effect of Multiple Concurrent Central Venous Catheters on Central Line–Associated Bloodstream Infections

2014 ◽  
Vol 35 (9) ◽  
pp. 1140-1146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cathleen Concannon ◽  
Edwin van Wijngaarden ◽  
Vanessa Stevens ◽  
Ghinwa Dumyati
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factor ◽  
Disease Severity ◽  
Independent Risk Factor ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Central Line ◽  
Central Venous Catheters ◽  
Apache Ii ◽  
Central Venous

ObjectiveThe current central line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) surveillance rate calculation does not account for multiple concurrent central venous catheters (CVCs). The presence of multiple CVCs creates more points of entry into the bloodstream, potentially increasing CLABSI risk. Multiple CVCs may be used in sicker patients, making it difficult to separate the relative contributions of multiple CVCs and comorbidities to CLABSI risk. We explored the relative impact of multiple CVCs, patient comorbidities, and disease severity on the risk of CLABSI.DesignCase-control study.SettingA total of 197 case patients and 201 control subjects with a CVC inserted during hospitalization at a tertiary care academic medical center from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2010.MethodsMultiple CVCs was the exposure of interest; the primary outcome was CLABSI. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) describing the association between CLABSI and multiple CVCs with and without controlling for Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) scores as measures of disease severity and patient comorbidities, respectively.ResultsPatients with multiple CVCs (n = 78) showed a 4.2 (95% CI, 2.2–8.4) times greater risk of CLABSI compared with patients with 1 CVC after adjusting for CLABSI risk factors. When including APACHE II and CCI scores, multiple CVCs remained an independent risk factor for CLABSI (OR, 3.4 [95% CI, 1.7–6.9]).ConclusionsMultiple CVCs is an independent risk factor for CLABSI even after adjusting for severity of illness. Adjustment for this risk may be necessary to accurately compare rates between hospitals.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;35(9):1140-1146

scholarly journals Impact of Critical Care Consultation Requests for Avoidable Central Venous Catheters on Medical-Surgical Units

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s258-s258
Author(s):  
Madhuri Tirumandas ◽  
Theresa Madaline ◽  
Gregory David Weston ◽  
Ruchika Jain ◽  
Jamie Figueredo
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Bloodstream Infections ◽  
Central Line ◽  
Central Venous Catheters ◽  
High Risk Population ◽  
Central Venous

Background: Although central-line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) in US hospitals have improved in the last decade, ~30,100 CLABSIs occur annually.1,2 Central venous catheters (CVC) carry a high risk of infections and should be limited to appropriate clinical indications.6,7 Montefiore Medical Center, a large, urban, academic medical center in the Bronx, serves a high-risk population with multiple comobidities.8–11 Despite this, the critical care medicine (CCM) team is often consulted to place a CVC when a peripheral intravenous line (PIV) cannot be obtained by nurses or primary providers. We evaluated the volume of CCM consultation requests for avoidable CVCs and related CLABSIs. Methods: Retrospective chart review was performed for patients with CCM consultation requests for CVC placement between July and October 2019. The indication for CVC, type of catheter inserted or recommended, and NHSN data were used to identify CLABSIs. CVCs were considered avoidable if a PIV was used for the stated indication and duration of therapy, with no anatomical contraindications to PIV in nonemergencies, according to the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC).6Results: Of 229 total CCM consults, 4 (18%) requests were for CVC placement; 21 consultations (9%) were requested for avoidable CVCs. Of 40 CVC requests, 18 (45%) resulted in CVC placement by the CCM team, 4 (10%) were deferred for nonurgent PICC by interventional radiology, and 18 (45%) were deferred in favor of PIV or no IV. Indications for CVC insertion included emergent chemotherapy (n = 8, 44%) and dialysis (n = 3, 16%), vasopressors (n = 3, 16%), antibiotics (n = 2, 11%) and blood transfusion (n = 2, 11%). Of 18 CVCs, 9 (50%) were potentially avoidable: 2 short-term antibiotics and rest for nonemergent indications; 2 blood transfusions, 1 dialysis, 2 chemotherapy and 2 vasopressors. Between July and October 2019, 6 CLABSIs occurred in CVCs placed by the CCM team; in 3 of 6 CLABSI events (50%), the CVC was avoidable. Conclusions: More than half of consultation requests to the CCM team for CVCs are avoidable, and they disproportionately contribute to CLABSI events. Alternatives for intravenous access could potentially avoid 9% of CCM consultations and 50% of CLABSIs in CCM-inserted CVCs on medical-surgical wards.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

Puncture Injuries Due to Needles Removed From Intravenous Lines: Should the Source Patient Routinely be Tested for Bloodborne Infections?

1993 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 325-330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Farrin A. Manian ◽  
Lynn Meyer ◽  
Joan Jenne
Keyword(s):  
Medical Center ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Occult Blood ◽  
Central Line ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Central Venous ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Central Lines ◽  
Care Community ◽  
Bloodborne Infections

AbstractObjective:To better assess the risk of exposure to bloodborne pathogens following puncture injuries due to needles removed from intravenous(IV) lines.Setting:Tertiary care community medical center.Patients:A convenience sample of hospitalized patients requiring IV piggy-back medications.Methods:Examination of 501 IV ports of peripheral lines, heparin-locks, and central venous lines for visible blood and testing the residual fluid in the needles removed from these ports for the presence of occult blood by using guaiac-impregnated paper.Results:The proximal ports of central venous lines and heparin-locks were statistically more likely to contain visible blood than proximal and distal ports of peripheral lines (17% and 20% versus 1% and 3% respectively, P<0.05). Similarly, needles removed from proximal ports of central venous lines and heparin-locks were statistically more likely to contain occult blood than those from peripheral lines ( 11% and 14% versus 2%, respectively, P<0.05). Only two needles removed from IV lines without visible blood contained occult blood: one from the proximal port of a central line and another from a heparin-lock. None of the needles from peripheral lines without visible blood contained occult blood.Estimation of the risk of transmission of hepatitis B and C and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) following injury by needles from various IV lines revealed that injury due to needles removed from peripheral IV lines and distal ports of central lines without visible blood was associated with “near zero” risk of transmission of these bloodborne infections at our medical center.Conclusions:Routine serological testing of source patients involving injury due to needles removed from peripheral IV lines and distal ports of central lines without visible blood is not necessary at our medical center. Conversely, due to the relatively high rate of occult blood in the needles removed from proximal ports of central venous lines and heparin-locks, puncture injuries due to these needles are considered significant and managed accordingly.

Midline venous catheters as an alternative to central line catheter placement: a product evaluation

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (8) ◽  
pp. S10-S18
Author(s):  
Amanda Carr ◽  
Jared R Green ◽  
Erin Benish ◽  
Richard Lanham ◽  
Tricia Kleidon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Care Facility ◽  
Product Evaluation ◽  
Central Line ◽  
Central Venous Catheters ◽  
Central Venous ◽  
Tertiary Care Facility

Midline catheters have emerged as a successful alternative to peripheral venous catheters (PVCs) and central venous catheters (CVCs) in select patients. Midline catheters allow for greater duration of access when compared with PVCs and avoid the critical complications associated with CVCs. This article describes the implementation of the Powerwand® midline at a large paediatric tertiary care facility in acute and intensive care settings, and presents illustrative cases of the catheter in use. Product evaluation was performed by a paediatric vascular access team of registered nurses and included information on patient outcomes, inserter satisfaction, patient satisfaction, and cost effectiveness.

scholarly journals Medically Attended Catheter Complications Are Common in Patients With Outpatient Central Venous Catheters

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 439-444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven S. Spires ◽  
Peter F. Rebeiro ◽  
Mickie Miller ◽  
Katie Koss ◽  
Patty W. Wright ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Center ◽  
Bloodstream Infections ◽  
Home Care Services ◽  
Absolute Number ◽  
Central Line ◽  
Clinic Visit ◽  
Central Venous Catheters ◽  
Central Venous ◽  
Catheter Complications ◽  
Improvement Programs

OBJECTIVEOutpatient central venous catheters (CVCs) are being used more frequently; however, data describing mechanical complications and central-line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) in the outpatient setting are limited. We performed a retrospective observational cohort study to understand the burden of these complications to elucidate their impact on the healthcare system.METHODSData were retrospectively collected on patients discharged from Vanderbilt University Medical Center with a CVC in place and admitted into the care of Vanderbilt Home Care Services. Risk factors for medically attended catheter-associated complications (CACs) and outpatient CLABSIs were analyzed.RESULTSA CAC developed in 143 patients (21.9%), for a total of 165 discrete CAC events. Among these, 76 (46%) required at least 1 visit to the emergency department or an inpatient admission, while the remaining 89 (54%) required an outpatient clinic visit. The risk for developing a CAC was significantly increased in female patients, patients with a CVC with >1 lumen, and patients receiving total parenteral nutrition. The absolute number of CLABSIs identified in the study population was small at 16, or 2.4% of the total cohort.CONCLUSIONSMedically attended catheter complications were common among outpatients discharged with a CVC, and reduction of these events should be the focus of outpatient quality improvement programs.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:439–444

scholarly journals When Good Bugs Go Bad: Epidemiology and Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of Corynebacterium striatum, an Emerging Multidrug-Resistant, Opportunistic Pathogen

2017 ◽  
Vol 61 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Allison R. McMullen ◽  
Neil Anderson ◽  
Meghan A. Wallace ◽  
Angela Shupe ◽  
Carey-Ann D. Burnham
Keyword(s):  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Opportunistic Pathogen ◽  
Central Line ◽  
Multidrug Resistant ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Corynebacterium Striatum ◽  
Infection Types

ABSTRACT Infections with Corynebacterium striatum have been described in the literature over the last 2 decades, with the majority being bacteremia, central line infections, and occasionally, endocarditis. In recent years, the frequency of C. striatum infections appears to be increasing; a factor likely contributing to this is the increased ease and accuracy of the identification of Corynebacterium spp., including C. striatum, from clinical cultures. The objective of this study was to retrospectively characterize C. striatum isolates recovered from specimens submitted as part of routine patient care at a 1,250-bed, tertiary-care academic medical center. Multiple strain types were recovered, as demonstrated by repetitive-sequence-based PCR. Most of the strains of C. striatum characterized were resistant to antimicrobials commonly used to treat Gram-positive organisms, such as penicillin, ceftriaxone, meropenem, clindamycin, and tetracycline. The MIC50 for ceftaroline was >32 μg/ml. Although there are no interpretive criteria for susceptibility with telavancin, it appeared to have potent in vitro efficacy against this species, with MIC50 and MIC90 values of 0.064 and 0.125 μg/ml, respectively. Finally, as previously reported in case studies, we demonstrated rapid in vitro development of daptomycin resistance in 100% of the isolates tested (n = 50), indicating that caution should be exhibited when using daptomycin for the treatment of C. striatum infections. C. striatum is an emerging, multidrug-resistant pathogen that can be associated with a variety of infection types.

scholarly journals Clinical Team Distribution and Antibiotic Use Patterns at a Tertiary-Care Academic Medical Center

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s168-s169
Author(s):  
Rebecca Choudhury ◽  
Ronald Beaulieu ◽  
Thomas Talbot ◽  
George Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Hospital Units ◽  
Antibiotic Utilization ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Level Data ◽  
Utilization Data

Background: As more US hospitals report antibiotic utilization to the CDC, standardized antimicrobial administration ratios (SAARs) derived from patient care unit-based antibiotic utilization data will increasingly be used to guide local antibiotic stewardship interventions. Location-based antibiotic utilization surveillance data are often utilized given the relative ease of ascertainment. However, aggregating antibiotic use data on a unit basis may have variable effects depending on the number of clinical teams providing care. In this study, we examined antibiotic utilization from units at a tertiary-care hospital to illustrate the potential challenges of using unit-based antibiotic utilization to change individual prescribing. Methods: We used inpatient pharmacy antibiotic use administration records at an adult tertiary-care academic medical center over a 6-month period from January 2019 through June 2019 to describe the geographic footprints and AU of medical, surgical, and critical care teams. All teams accounting for at least 1 patient day present on each unit during the study period were included in the analysis, as were all teams prescribing at least 1 antibiotic day of therapy (DOT). Results: The study population consisted of 24 units: 6 ICUs (25%) and 18 non-ICUs (75%). Over the study period, the average numbers of teams caring for patients in ICU and non-ICU wards were 10.2 (range, 3.2–16.9) and 13.7 (range, 10.4–18.9), respectively. Units were divided into 3 categories by the number of teams, accounting for ≥70% of total patient days present (Fig. 1): “homogenous” (≤3), “pauciteam” (4–7 teams), and “heterogeneous” (>7 teams). In total, 12 (50%) units were “pauciteam”; 7 (29%) were “homogeneous”; and 5 (21%) were “heterogeneous.” Units could also be classified as “homogenous,” “pauciteam,” or “heterogeneous” based on team-level antibiotic utilization or DOT for specific antibiotics. Different patterns emerged based on antibiotic restriction status. Classifying units based on vancomycin DOT (unrestricted) exhibited fewer “heterogeneous” units, whereas using meropenem DOT (restricted) revealed no “heterogeneous” units. Furthermore, the average number of units where individual clinical teams prescribed an antibiotic varied widely (range, 1.4–12.3 units per team). Conclusions: Unit-based antibiotic utilization data may encounter limitations in affecting prescriber behavior, particularly on units where a large number of clinical teams contribute to antibiotic utilization. Additionally, some services prescribing antibiotics across many hospital units may be minimally influenced by unit-level data. Team-based antibiotic utilization may allow for a more targeted metric to drive individual team prescribing.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document