Cargando…

Bloodstream infection burden among cancer clinic patients with PICC Lines: A prospective, observational study

Background: Oncology patients are at high risk for bloodstream infection (BSI) due to immunosuppression and frequent use of central venous catheters. Surveillance in this population is largely relegated to inpatient settings and limited data are available describing community burden. We evaluated ra...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bethlahmy, Jessica, Saito, Hiroki, Bahadori, Bardia, Tjoa, Thomas, Nourollahi, Shereen, Alsharif, Mohamad, Chang, Justin, Armendariz, Linda, Torres, Vincent, Masson, Sandra, Nelson, Edward, Etten, Richard Van, Rashid, Syma, Saavedra, Raheeb, Singh, Raveena D., Gohil, Shruti
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cambridge University Press 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10594273/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ash.2023.289
_version_ 1785124612012507136
author Bethlahmy, Jessica
Saito, Hiroki
Bahadori, Bardia
Tjoa, Thomas
Nourollahi, Shereen
Alsharif, Mohamad
Chang, Justin
Armendariz, Linda
Torres, Vincent
Masson, Sandra
Nelson, Edward
Etten, Richard Van
Rashid, Syma
Saavedra, Raheeb
Singh, Raveena D.
Gohil, Shruti
author_facet Bethlahmy, Jessica
Saito, Hiroki
Bahadori, Bardia
Tjoa, Thomas
Nourollahi, Shereen
Alsharif, Mohamad
Chang, Justin
Armendariz, Linda
Torres, Vincent
Masson, Sandra
Nelson, Edward
Etten, Richard Van
Rashid, Syma
Saavedra, Raheeb
Singh, Raveena D.
Gohil, Shruti
author_sort Bethlahmy, Jessica
collection PubMed
description Background: Oncology patients are at high risk for bloodstream infection (BSI) due to immunosuppression and frequent use of central venous catheters. Surveillance in this population is largely relegated to inpatient settings and limited data are available describing community burden. We evaluated rates of BSI, clinic or emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalizations in a large cohort of oncology outpatients with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). Methods: In this prospective, observational study, we followed a convenience sample of adults (age>18) with PICCs at a large academic outpatient oncology clinic for 35 months between July 2015 and November 2018. We assessed demographics, malignancy type, PICC insertion and removal dates, history of prior PICC, and line duration. Outcomes included BSI events (defined as >1 positive blood cultures or >2 positive blood cultures if coagulase-negative Staphylococcus), ED visits (without hospitalization), and unplanned hospitalizations (excluding scheduled chemotherapy hospitalizations). We used χ(2) analyses to compare the frequency of categorical outcomes, and we used unpaired t tests to assess differences in means of continuous variable in hematologic versus solid-tumor malignancy patients. We used generalized linear mixed-effects models to assess differences in BSI (clustered by patient) separately for gram-positive and gram-negative BSI outcomes. Results: Among 478 patients with 658 unique PICC lines and 64,190 line days, 271 patients (413 lines) had hematologic malignancy and 207 patients (232 lines) had solid-tumor malignancy. Cohort characteristics and outcomes stratified by malignancy type are shown in Table 1. Compared to those with hematologic malignancy, solid-tumor patients were older, had 47% fewer clinic visits, and had 32% lower frequency of prior PICC lines. Overall, there were 75 BSI events (12%; 1.2 per 1,000 catheter days). We detected no significant difference in BSI rates when comparing solid-tumor versus hematologic malignancies (P = 0.20); BSIs with gram-positive pathogen were 69% higher in patients with solid tumors. Gram-negative BSIs were 41% higher in patients with hematologic malignancy. Solid-tumor malignancy was associated with 4.5-fold higher odds of developing BSI with gram-positive pathogen (OR, 4.48; 95% CI, 1.60–12.60; P = .005) compared to those with hematologic malignancy, after adjusting for age, sex, history of prior PICC, and line duration. Differences in gram-negative BSI were not significant on multivariate analysis. Conclusions: The burden of all-cause BSIs in cancer clinic adults with PICC lines was 12% or 1.2 per 1,000 catheter days, as high as nationally reported inpatient BSI rates. Higher risk of gram-positive BSIs in solid-tumor patients suggests the need for targeted infection prevention activities in this population, such as improvements in central-line monitoring, outpatient care, and maintenance of lines and/or dressings, as well as chlorhexidine bathing to reduce skin bioburden. Disclosures: None
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10594273
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Cambridge University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105942732023-10-25 Bloodstream infection burden among cancer clinic patients with PICC Lines: A prospective, observational study Bethlahmy, Jessica Saito, Hiroki Bahadori, Bardia Tjoa, Thomas Nourollahi, Shereen Alsharif, Mohamad Chang, Justin Armendariz, Linda Torres, Vincent Masson, Sandra Nelson, Edward Etten, Richard Van Rashid, Syma Saavedra, Raheeb Singh, Raveena D. Gohil, Shruti Antimicrob Steward Healthc Epidemiol Clabsi Background: Oncology patients are at high risk for bloodstream infection (BSI) due to immunosuppression and frequent use of central venous catheters. Surveillance in this population is largely relegated to inpatient settings and limited data are available describing community burden. We evaluated rates of BSI, clinic or emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalizations in a large cohort of oncology outpatients with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). Methods: In this prospective, observational study, we followed a convenience sample of adults (age>18) with PICCs at a large academic outpatient oncology clinic for 35 months between July 2015 and November 2018. We assessed demographics, malignancy type, PICC insertion and removal dates, history of prior PICC, and line duration. Outcomes included BSI events (defined as >1 positive blood cultures or >2 positive blood cultures if coagulase-negative Staphylococcus), ED visits (without hospitalization), and unplanned hospitalizations (excluding scheduled chemotherapy hospitalizations). We used χ(2) analyses to compare the frequency of categorical outcomes, and we used unpaired t tests to assess differences in means of continuous variable in hematologic versus solid-tumor malignancy patients. We used generalized linear mixed-effects models to assess differences in BSI (clustered by patient) separately for gram-positive and gram-negative BSI outcomes. Results: Among 478 patients with 658 unique PICC lines and 64,190 line days, 271 patients (413 lines) had hematologic malignancy and 207 patients (232 lines) had solid-tumor malignancy. Cohort characteristics and outcomes stratified by malignancy type are shown in Table 1. Compared to those with hematologic malignancy, solid-tumor patients were older, had 47% fewer clinic visits, and had 32% lower frequency of prior PICC lines. Overall, there were 75 BSI events (12%; 1.2 per 1,000 catheter days). We detected no significant difference in BSI rates when comparing solid-tumor versus hematologic malignancies (P = 0.20); BSIs with gram-positive pathogen were 69% higher in patients with solid tumors. Gram-negative BSIs were 41% higher in patients with hematologic malignancy. Solid-tumor malignancy was associated with 4.5-fold higher odds of developing BSI with gram-positive pathogen (OR, 4.48; 95% CI, 1.60–12.60; P = .005) compared to those with hematologic malignancy, after adjusting for age, sex, history of prior PICC, and line duration. Differences in gram-negative BSI were not significant on multivariate analysis. Conclusions: The burden of all-cause BSIs in cancer clinic adults with PICC lines was 12% or 1.2 per 1,000 catheter days, as high as nationally reported inpatient BSI rates. Higher risk of gram-positive BSIs in solid-tumor patients suggests the need for targeted infection prevention activities in this population, such as improvements in central-line monitoring, outpatient care, and maintenance of lines and/or dressings, as well as chlorhexidine bathing to reduce skin bioburden. Disclosures: None Cambridge University Press 2023-09-29 /pmc/articles/PMC10594273/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ash.2023.289 Text en © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clabsi
Bethlahmy, Jessica
Saito, Hiroki
Bahadori, Bardia
Tjoa, Thomas
Nourollahi, Shereen
Alsharif, Mohamad
Chang, Justin
Armendariz, Linda
Torres, Vincent
Masson, Sandra
Nelson, Edward
Etten, Richard Van
Rashid, Syma
Saavedra, Raheeb
Singh, Raveena D.
Gohil, Shruti
Bloodstream infection burden among cancer clinic patients with PICC Lines: A prospective, observational study
title Bloodstream infection burden among cancer clinic patients with PICC Lines: A prospective, observational study
title_full Bloodstream infection burden among cancer clinic patients with PICC Lines: A prospective, observational study
title_fullStr Bloodstream infection burden among cancer clinic patients with PICC Lines: A prospective, observational study
title_full_unstemmed Bloodstream infection burden among cancer clinic patients with PICC Lines: A prospective, observational study
title_short Bloodstream infection burden among cancer clinic patients with PICC Lines: A prospective, observational study
title_sort bloodstream infection burden among cancer clinic patients with picc lines: a prospective, observational study
topic Clabsi
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10594273/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ash.2023.289
work_keys_str_mv AT bethlahmyjessica bloodstreaminfectionburdenamongcancerclinicpatientswithpicclinesaprospectiveobservationalstudy
AT saitohiroki bloodstreaminfectionburdenamongcancerclinicpatientswithpicclinesaprospectiveobservationalstudy
AT bahadoribardia bloodstreaminfectionburdenamongcancerclinicpatientswithpicclinesaprospectiveobservationalstudy
AT tjoathomas bloodstreaminfectionburdenamongcancerclinicpatientswithpicclinesaprospectiveobservationalstudy
AT nourollahishereen bloodstreaminfectionburdenamongcancerclinicpatientswithpicclinesaprospectiveobservationalstudy
AT alsharifmohamad bloodstreaminfectionburdenamongcancerclinicpatientswithpicclinesaprospectiveobservationalstudy
AT changjustin bloodstreaminfectionburdenamongcancerclinicpatientswithpicclinesaprospectiveobservationalstudy
AT armendarizlinda bloodstreaminfectionburdenamongcancerclinicpatientswithpicclinesaprospectiveobservationalstudy
AT torresvincent bloodstreaminfectionburdenamongcancerclinicpatientswithpicclinesaprospectiveobservationalstudy
AT massonsandra bloodstreaminfectionburdenamongcancerclinicpatientswithpicclinesaprospectiveobservationalstudy
AT nelsonedward bloodstreaminfectionburdenamongcancerclinicpatientswithpicclinesaprospectiveobservationalstudy
AT ettenrichardvan bloodstreaminfectionburdenamongcancerclinicpatientswithpicclinesaprospectiveobservationalstudy
AT rashidsyma bloodstreaminfectionburdenamongcancerclinicpatientswithpicclinesaprospectiveobservationalstudy
AT saavedraraheeb bloodstreaminfectionburdenamongcancerclinicpatientswithpicclinesaprospectiveobservationalstudy
AT singhraveenad bloodstreaminfectionburdenamongcancerclinicpatientswithpicclinesaprospectiveobservationalstudy
AT gohilshruti bloodstreaminfectionburdenamongcancerclinicpatientswithpicclinesaprospectiveobservationalstudy