- Poster presentation
- Open Access
Central venous catheter-related infection: a cohort study evaluating dedicated central venous catheter packs
© BioMed Central Ltd 2009
- Published: 11 November 2009
- Central Venous Catheter
- Colonisation Rate
- Care Bundle
- Central Venous Catheter Insertion
- Regular Line
Central venous catheter (CVC)-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI) are the third most common healthcare-associated infection (HAI) in ICUs, associated with significant morbidity, mortality, increased length of stay and costs [1, 2]. Several care bundle studies have suggested that utilising various strategies together (such as training, regular lines monitoring and using dedicated line insertion trolleys) can have a positive impact on CRBSI rates [3–6]. However, the impact solely attributable to the provision of a dedicated, stand-alone CVC insertion pack has not been evaluated. We therefore investigated the impact of a new EPIC2 compliant CVC pack, introduced in Good Hope Hospital in 2007, on CVC tip colonisation rates.
Data were collected prospectively between June 2007 and December 2008. Patients were divided into two cohorts: patients whose CVCs were inserted using the CVC packs (B), and those receiving CVCs prior to the introduction of the packs (nB). Data were collated from questionnaires as well as patients' notes on: patient's age and sex; type and site of CVC inserted; location at the time of insertion; the grade of practitioner; and the duration CVCs remained in situ. Using the hospital's patient information system and patient notes, data on CVC tip cultures were obtained. Data are presented as percentages and analysed using multivariate analysis.
Our results indicate that use of dedicated CVC packs was associated with a significant reduction in the colonisation rate of CVCs, despite lines being left in situ for longer periods and the more frequent use of quinlumen catheters in the intervention group. There was also a trend toward prevention of MRSA colonisation.
- Blake M: Update: catheter-related bloodstream infection rates in relation to clinical practice and needleless device type. Can J Infect Control 2008, 23: 156-160. 162.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tacconelli E, Smith G, Hieke K, Lafuma A, Bastide P: Epidemiology, medical outcomes and costs of catheter-related bloodstream infections in intensive care units of four European countries: literature and registry based estimates. J Hosp Infect 2009, 72: 97-103. 10.1016/j.jhin.2008.12.012View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mermel LA: Prevention of central venous catheter-related infections: what works other than impregnated or coated catheters? J Hosp Infect 2007, 65(Suppl 2):30-33. 10.1016/S0195-6701(07)60011-5View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Berenholtz SM, Pronovost PJ, Lipsett PA, et al.: Eliminating catheter-related bloodstream infections in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 2004, 32: 2014-2020. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000142399.70913.2FView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Anonymous: Reduction in central line-associated bloodstream infections among patients in intensive care units Pennsylvania, April 2001 March 2005. MMWR Recomm Rep 2005, 54: 1013-1016.Google Scholar
- Pronovost P, Needham D, Berenholtz S, et al.: An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU. N Engl J Med 2006, 355: 2725-2732. 10.1056/NEJMoa061115View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar