Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-15T09:10:17.135Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Use of Maximal Sterile Barrier Precautions and/or Antimicrobial-Coated Catheters to Reduce the Risk of Central Venous Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Duk-hee Lee ,
Koo Young Jung  and
Yoon-Hee Choi
Duk-hee Lee
Affiliation:
Ewha Womans University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea
Koo Young Jung*
Affiliation:
Ewha Womans University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea
Yoon-Hee Choi
Affiliation:
College of Medicine, Eulji University, Daejeon, South Korea
*
Ewha Womans University Hospital, Mok-dong 911-1, Yang-GhoenKu, Seoul 158-710, South Korea (kyjung@ewha.ac.kr)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection is clinically important because of its high mortality rate. This prospective study shows by multivariate analysis that the use of maximal sterile barrier precautions (odds ratio, 5.205 [95% confidence interval, 0.015-1.136]; P= .023) and the use of antimicrobial-coated catheters (odds ratio, 5.269 [95% confidence interval, 0.073-0.814]; P = .022) are independent factors associated with a lowered risk of acquiring a central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection.

Type
Concise Communication
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 29 , Issue 10 , October 2008 , pp. 947 - 950
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Pearson, ML. Guideline for prevention of intravascular device-related infections. Part I. Intravascular device-related infections: an overview. The Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Am J Infect Control 1996;24:262–277.Google Scholar
2.Raad, II, Hohn, DC, Gilbreath, BJ, et al.Prevention of central venous catheter-related infections by using maximal sterile barrier precautions during insertion. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994; 15(4 Pt 1):231–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Safdar, N, Kluger, DM, Maki, DG. A review of risk factors for catheter-related bloodstream infection caused by percutaneously inserted, non-cuffed central venous catheters: implications for preventive strategies. Medicine (Baltimore) 2002;81:466–479.Google Scholar
4.Mermel, LA. Prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections (published correction appears in Ann Intern Med 2000;133:5). Ann Intern Med 2000;132:391–402.Google Scholar
5.Yoo, S, Ha, M, Chio, D, Pai, H. Effectiveness of surveillance of central catheter-related bloodstream infection in an ICU in Korea. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2001;22:433–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Pronovost, P, Needham, D, Berenholtz, S, et al.An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU (published correction appears in N Engl J Med 2007;356:2660). N Engl J Med 2006;355:2725–2732.Google Scholar
7.Sherertz, RJ, Ely, EW, Westbrook, DM, et al.Education of physicians-in-training can decrease the risk for vascular catheter infection. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:641–648.Google Scholar
8.Maki, DG, Stolz, SM, Wheeler, S, Mermel, LA. Prevention of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection by use of an antiseptic-impregnated catheter. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:257–266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Jaeger, K, Zenz, S, Jüttner, B, et al.Reduction of catheter-related infections in neutropenic patients: a prospective controlled randomized trial using a chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine-impregnated central venous catheter. Ann Hematol 2005;84:258–262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Hanna, HA, Raad, I. Blood products: a significant risk factor for long-term catheter-related bloodstream infections in cancer patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2001;22:165–166.Google Scholar