Clinical impact of needle-free connector design: A systematic review of literature

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 847-853 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor Daniel Rosenthal
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bloodstream Infection ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Microbial Contamination ◽  
Open Systems ◽  
Central Line ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Infection Rates ◽  
Positive Displacement ◽  
Control And Prevention

The objective of this systematic review is to analyze types of needle-free connectors and open systems and their effects on central line–associated bloodstream infection rates and other adverse outcomes through a research protocol consistent with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews’ recommendations. MEDLINE and Cochrane databases of systematic reviews were searched for relevant comparative studies published from January 2000 to September 2017. Eighteen studies compared central line–associated bloodstream infection (according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Healthcare Safety Network definition), internal microbial contamination, occlusions, phlebitis, and other outcomes associated with needle-free connectors with a positive displacement device, negative displacement device, neutral displacement device, or three-way stopcock. Ten studies reported central line–associated bloodstream infection rates, which were lower with positive displacement devices versus negative displacement devices/neutral displacement devices (one study) and with negative displacement devices versus three-way stopcocks (three studies), but varied with different positive displacement device and negative displacement device/neutral displacement device designs (four studies). Seven studies reported internal microbial contamination rates, which were higher with three-way stopcocks versus negative displacement devices (two studies) and positive displacement devices (two studies), lower when positive displacement devices were used versus neutral displacement devices (one study), and varied with different types of negative displacement device (one study). Central line–associated bloodstream infection rates and most other outcomes analyzed were statistically significantly higher with three-way stopcocks (open devices) versus positive displacement device, negative displacement devices, and neutral displacement devices, but varied among closed device designs.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of instantaneous wave-free ratio in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. e017868
Author(s):  
Joey S.W. Kwong ◽  
Sheyu Li ◽  
Wan-Jie Gu ◽  
Hao Chen ◽  
Chao Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Coronary Revascularisation ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Collection Form ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionEffective selection of coronary lesions for revascularisation is pivotal in the management of symptoms and adverse outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. Recently, instantaneous ‘wave-free’ ratio (iFR) has been proposed as a new diagnostic index for assessing the severity of coronary stenoses without the need of pharmacological vasodilation. Evidence of the effectiveness of iFR-guided revascularisation is emerging and a systematic review is warranted.Methods and analysisThis is a protocol for a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and controlled observational studies. Electronic sources including MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase, Cochrane databases and ClinicalTrials.gov will be searched for potentially eligible studies investigating the effects of iFR-guided strategy in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation. Studies will be selected against transparent eligibility criteria and data will be extracted using a prestandardised data collection form by two independent authors. Risk of bias in included studies and overall quality of evidence will be assessed using validated methodological tools. Meta-analysis will be performed using the Review Manager software. Our systematic review will be performed according to the guidance from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. Results of the systematic review will be disseminated as conference proceedings and peer-reviewed journal publication.Trial registration numberThis protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42017065460.

scholarly journals The Effect of Adding Comorbidities to Current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Central-Line–Associated Bloodstream Infection Risk-Adjustment Methodology

2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (9) ◽  
pp. 1019-1024 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah S. Jackson ◽  
Surbhi Leekha ◽  
Laurence S. Magder ◽  
Lisa Pineles ◽  
Deverick J. Anderson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Disease Control ◽  
Bloodstream Infection ◽  
Risk Adjustment ◽  
Central Line ◽  
Case Mix ◽  
Type Model ◽  
Patient Case ◽  
Icu Patients ◽  
Control And Prevention ◽  
Centers For Disease Control

BACKGROUNDRisk adjustment is needed to fairly compare central-line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates between hospitals. Until 2017, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) methodology adjusted CLABSI rates only by type of intensive care unit (ICU). The 2017 CDC models also adjust for hospital size and medical school affiliation. We hypothesized that risk adjustment would be improved by including patient demographics and comorbidities from electronically available hospital discharge codes.METHODSUsing a cohort design across 22 hospitals, we analyzed data from ICU patients admitted between January 2012 and December 2013. Demographics and International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) discharge codes were obtained for each patient, and CLABSIs were identified by trained infection preventionists. Models adjusting only for ICU type and for ICU type plus patient case mix were built and compared using discrimination and standardized infection ratio (SIR). Hospitals were ranked by SIR for each model to examine and compare the changes in rank.RESULTSOverall, 85,849 ICU patients were analyzed and 162 (0.2%) developed CLABSI. The significant variables added to the ICU model were coagulopathy, paralysis, renal failure, malnutrition, and age. The C statistics were 0.55 (95% CI, 0.51–0.59) for the ICU-type model and 0.64 (95% CI, 0.60–0.69) for the ICU-type plus patient case-mix model. When the hospitals were ranked by adjusted SIRs, 10 hospitals (45%) changed rank when comorbidity was added to the ICU-type model.CONCLUSIONSOur risk-adjustment model for CLABSI using electronically available comorbidities demonstrated better discrimination than did the CDC model. The CDC should strongly consider comorbidity-based risk adjustment to more accurately compare CLABSI rates across hospitals.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:1019–1024

scholarly journals Impact of State Reporting Laws on Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infection Rates in U.S. Adult Intensive Care Units

2016 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 1079-1098 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hangsheng Liu ◽  
Carolyn T. A. Herzig ◽  
Andrew W. Dick ◽  
E. Yoko Furuya ◽  
Elaine Larson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Bloodstream Infection ◽  
Intensive Care Units ◽  
Central Line ◽  
Infection Rates ◽  
Reporting Laws

scholarly journals Impact of Medicare’s Hospital-Acquired Condition Policy on Infections in Safety Net and Non–Safety Net Hospitals

2015 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 649-655 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise Elaine Vaz ◽  
Kenneth P. Kleinman ◽  
Alison Tse Kawai ◽  
Robert Jin ◽  
William J. Kassler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bloodstream Infection ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
The United States ◽  
Central Line ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Infection Rates ◽  
Healthcare Associated Infection ◽  
Hospital Acquired Conditions ◽  
Hospital Acquired

BACKGROUNDPolicymakers may wish to align healthcare payment and quality of care while minimizing unintended consequences, particularly for safety net hospitals.OBJECTIVETo determine whether the 2008 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospital-Acquired Conditions policy had a differential impact on targeted healthcare-associated infection rates in safety net compared with non–safety net hospitals.DESIGNInterrupted time-series design.SETTING AND PARTICIPANTSNonfederal acute care hospitals that reported central line–associated bloodstream infection and ventilator-associated pneumonia rates to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health Safety Network from July 1, 2007, through December 31, 2013.RESULTSWe did not observe changes in the slope of targeted infection rates in the postpolicy period compared with the prepolicy period for either safety net (postpolicy vs prepolicy ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.84–1.09]) or non–safety net (0.99 [0.90–1.10]) hospitals. Controlling for prepolicy secular trends, we did not detect differences in an immediate change at the time of the policy between safety net and non–safety net hospitals (P for 2-way interaction, .87).CONCLUSIONSThe Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospital-Acquired Conditions policy did not have an impact, either positive or negative, on already declining rates of central line–associated bloodstream infection in safety net or non–safety net hospitals. Continued evaluations of the broad impact of payment policies on safety net hospitals will remain important as the use of financial incentives and penalties continues to expand in the United States.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015;00(0): 1–7

scholarly journals Differences in Central Line–Associated Bloodstream Infection Rates Based on the Criteria Used to Count Central Line Days

JAMA ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 323 (2) ◽  
pp. 183 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Scheinker ◽  
Andrew Ward ◽  
Andrew Y. Shin ◽  
Grace M. Lee ◽  
Roshni Mathew ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bloodstream Infection ◽  
Central Line ◽  
Infection Rates

Impact of International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium’s multidimensional approach on central line–associated bloodstream infection rates in Bahrain

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 481-489
Author(s):  
Safaa Alkhawaja ◽  
Nermeen Kamal Saeed ◽  
Victor Daniel Rosenthal ◽  
Sana Abdul-Aziz ◽  
Ameena Alsayegh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Nosocomial Infection ◽  
Infection Control ◽  
Bloodstream Infection ◽  
Infection Rate ◽  
Bloodstream Infections ◽  
Central Line ◽  
Multidimensional Approach ◽  
Infection Rates

Background: Central line–associated bloodstream infections are serious life-threatening infections in the intensive care unit setting. Methods: To analyze the impact of the International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC) Multidimensional Approach (IMA) and INICC Surveillance Online System (ISOS) on central line–associated bloodstream infection rates in Bahrain from January 2013 to December 2016, we conducted a prospective, before-after surveillance, cohort, observational study in one intensive care unit in Bahrain. During baseline, we performed outcome and process surveillance of central line–associated bloodstream infection on 2320 intensive care unit patients, applying Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Healthcare Safety Network definitions. During intervention, we implemented IMA through ISOS, including (1) a bundle of infection prevention interventions, (2) education, (3) outcome surveillance, (4) process surveillance, (5) feedback on central line–associated bloodstream infection rates and consequences, and (6) performance feedback of process surveillance. Bivariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed using a logistic regression model to estimate the effect of the intervention on the central line–associated bloodstream infection rate. Results: During baseline, 672 central line days and 7 central line–associated bloodstream infections were recorded, accounting for 10.4 central line–associated bloodstream infections per 1000 central line days. During intervention, 13,020 central line days and 48 central line–associated bloodstream infections were recorded. After the second year, there was a sustained 89% cumulative central line–associated bloodstream infection rate reduction to 1.2 central line–associated bloodstream infections per 1000 central line days (incidence density rate, 0.11; 95% confidence interval 0.1–0.3; p, 0.001). The average extra length of stay of patients with central line–associated bloodstream infection was 23.3 days, and due to the reduction of central line–associated bloodstream infections, 367 days of hospitalization were saved, amounting to a reduction in hospitalization costs of US$1,100,553. Conclusion: Implementing IMA was associated with a significant reduction in the central line–associated bloodstream infection rate in Bahrain.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document