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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mushtaq, Ammara, Navalkele, Bhagyashri, Kaur, Maninder, Saleem, Aleena, Rana, Natasha, Gera, Sonia, Chandramohan, Suganya, Surapaneni, Malini, Chopra, Teena
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