Cargando…
Comparison of Midline vs. Central Venous Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections: Are Midlines Safer Than Central Venous Lines?
BACKGROUND: With the rising use of midline catheters (MC), validation of their safety is essential. The objective of our study was to evaluate the incidence of bloodstream infections (BSI) and other complications related to the use of MC and central venous catheter (CVC). METHODS: A retrospective co...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5630752/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofx163.1691 |
_version_ | 1783269284267425792 |
---|---|
author | Mushtaq, Ammara Navalkele, Bhagyashri Kaur, Maninder Saleem, Aleena Rana, Natasha Gera, Sonia Chandramohan, Suganya Surapaneni, Malini Chopra, Teena |
author_facet | Mushtaq, Ammara Navalkele, Bhagyashri Kaur, Maninder Saleem, Aleena Rana, Natasha Gera, Sonia Chandramohan, Suganya Surapaneni, Malini Chopra, Teena |
author_sort | Mushtaq, Ammara |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: With the rising use of midline catheters (MC), validation of their safety is essential. The objective of our study was to evaluate the incidence of bloodstream infections (BSI) and other complications related to the use of MC and central venous catheter (CVC). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed from May-December 2016 at Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, MI. Adult patients were eligible for inclusion if they had either MC or CVC during hospitalization. Outcomes assessed were line-related BSI per the National Healthcare Service Network (NHSN) criteria, mechanical complications (nonfunctional line due to disruption in patency or dislodging), hospital length of stay, mortality and readmission within 90 days of discharge. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS software. RESULTS: A total of 312 patients with MC and 215 patients with CVC were analyzed. The mean age of cohort was 57 ± 17.4 years and 52% were females. Higher catheter-related BSIs (CRBSI) were seen in patients with CVC (7/215) compared with MC (1/312); (3.3 vs. 0.3%; P = 0.009). Among the CRBSI, alternative source of infection was identified in both MC (1/1) and CVC group (2/7). Two of the 7 CVC-related BSI were reported to NHSN. More mechanical complications were seen in MC (3.5%) compared with CVC group (0.4%) (P = 0.03). Patients with CVC had higher crude mortality (14% vs 6%, P = 0.002), readmission rate (51% vs 38%, P = 0.004) and line-related readmissions (5.7% vs 0.8%, P = 0.05) compared with MC group. Multivariate analysis showed female gender (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38–0.81), burns (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06–0.74), myocardial infarction (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.08–0.36) and stay in the intensive care unit (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.41–0.88) had higher likelihood to receive MC while CVC was more likely to be inserted in patients with chronic kidney disease (OR 2.86, 95% CI 1.84–4.44). CONCLUSION: Patients with chronic kidney disease are more likely to get CVC and hence particular attention should be paid to prevent BSI through appropriate catheter care. MC are more common in patients with burns, myocardial infarction and in the intensive care unit. Larger studies are needed to understand if MC or CVC are independent predictors for BSI. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5630752 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-56307522017-11-07 Comparison of Midline vs. Central Venous Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections: Are Midlines Safer Than Central Venous Lines? Mushtaq, Ammara Navalkele, Bhagyashri Kaur, Maninder Saleem, Aleena Rana, Natasha Gera, Sonia Chandramohan, Suganya Surapaneni, Malini Chopra, Teena Open Forum Infect Dis Abstracts BACKGROUND: With the rising use of midline catheters (MC), validation of their safety is essential. The objective of our study was to evaluate the incidence of bloodstream infections (BSI) and other complications related to the use of MC and central venous catheter (CVC). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed from May-December 2016 at Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, MI. Adult patients were eligible for inclusion if they had either MC or CVC during hospitalization. Outcomes assessed were line-related BSI per the National Healthcare Service Network (NHSN) criteria, mechanical complications (nonfunctional line due to disruption in patency or dislodging), hospital length of stay, mortality and readmission within 90 days of discharge. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS software. RESULTS: A total of 312 patients with MC and 215 patients with CVC were analyzed. The mean age of cohort was 57 ± 17.4 years and 52% were females. Higher catheter-related BSIs (CRBSI) were seen in patients with CVC (7/215) compared with MC (1/312); (3.3 vs. 0.3%; P = 0.009). Among the CRBSI, alternative source of infection was identified in both MC (1/1) and CVC group (2/7). Two of the 7 CVC-related BSI were reported to NHSN. More mechanical complications were seen in MC (3.5%) compared with CVC group (0.4%) (P = 0.03). Patients with CVC had higher crude mortality (14% vs 6%, P = 0.002), readmission rate (51% vs 38%, P = 0.004) and line-related readmissions (5.7% vs 0.8%, P = 0.05) compared with MC group. Multivariate analysis showed female gender (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38–0.81), burns (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06–0.74), myocardial infarction (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.08–0.36) and stay in the intensive care unit (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.41–0.88) had higher likelihood to receive MC while CVC was more likely to be inserted in patients with chronic kidney disease (OR 2.86, 95% CI 1.84–4.44). CONCLUSION: Patients with chronic kidney disease are more likely to get CVC and hence particular attention should be paid to prevent BSI through appropriate catheter care. MC are more common in patients with burns, myocardial infarction and in the intensive care unit. Larger studies are needed to understand if MC or CVC are independent predictors for BSI. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures. Oxford University Press 2017-10-04 /pmc/articles/PMC5630752/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofx163.1691 Text en © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com |
spellingShingle | Abstracts Mushtaq, Ammara Navalkele, Bhagyashri Kaur, Maninder Saleem, Aleena Rana, Natasha Gera, Sonia Chandramohan, Suganya Surapaneni, Malini Chopra, Teena Comparison of Midline vs. Central Venous Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections: Are Midlines Safer Than Central Venous Lines? |
title | Comparison of Midline vs. Central Venous Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections: Are Midlines Safer Than Central Venous Lines? |
title_full | Comparison of Midline vs. Central Venous Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections: Are Midlines Safer Than Central Venous Lines? |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Midline vs. Central Venous Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections: Are Midlines Safer Than Central Venous Lines? |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Midline vs. Central Venous Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections: Are Midlines Safer Than Central Venous Lines? |
title_short | Comparison of Midline vs. Central Venous Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections: Are Midlines Safer Than Central Venous Lines? |
title_sort | comparison of midline vs. central venous catheter-related bloodstream infections: are midlines safer than central venous lines? |
topic | Abstracts |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5630752/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofx163.1691 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mushtaqammara comparisonofmidlinevscentralvenouscatheterrelatedbloodstreaminfectionsaremidlinessaferthancentralvenouslines AT navalkelebhagyashri comparisonofmidlinevscentralvenouscatheterrelatedbloodstreaminfectionsaremidlinessaferthancentralvenouslines AT kaurmaninder comparisonofmidlinevscentralvenouscatheterrelatedbloodstreaminfectionsaremidlinessaferthancentralvenouslines AT saleemaleena comparisonofmidlinevscentralvenouscatheterrelatedbloodstreaminfectionsaremidlinessaferthancentralvenouslines AT rananatasha comparisonofmidlinevscentralvenouscatheterrelatedbloodstreaminfectionsaremidlinessaferthancentralvenouslines AT gerasonia comparisonofmidlinevscentralvenouscatheterrelatedbloodstreaminfectionsaremidlinessaferthancentralvenouslines AT chandramohansuganya comparisonofmidlinevscentralvenouscatheterrelatedbloodstreaminfectionsaremidlinessaferthancentralvenouslines AT surapanenimalini comparisonofmidlinevscentralvenouscatheterrelatedbloodstreaminfectionsaremidlinessaferthancentralvenouslines AT choprateena comparisonofmidlinevscentralvenouscatheterrelatedbloodstreaminfectionsaremidlinessaferthancentralvenouslines |