Early removal versus expectant management of central venous catheters in neonates with bloodstream infection

Early removal of a permanent catheter during the acute management of the unstable pediatric hemato-oncology patient with suspected catheter-related bloodstream infection: a multi-disciplinary survey and review of the literature

There are no guidelines for the optimal manner and timing of permanent central catheter removal in the hemodynamically unstable pediatric hemato-oncology patient with suspected catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI). Our goals were to examine current practices of permanent central catheter management and choice of removal in the hemodynamically unstable pediatric patient with suspected CRBSI among practitioners in diverse subspecialties. We performed a literature review on the subject, and conducted a multi-disciplinary survey included pediatric oncologists, pediatric emergency medicine physicians, and pediatric intensive care physicians whom we queried about their choice of permanent central catheter management and removal while treating the hemodynamically unstable pediatric patient with suspected CRBSI. Most of the 78 responders (n = 47, 59%) preferred to utilize the existing permanent central catheter for initial intravenous access rather than an alternative access. There were no significant differences between physician subspecialties (p = 0.29) or training levels (p = 0.14). Significantly more pediatric emergency medicine physicians preferred not to remove the permanent central catheter at any time point compared to the pediatric hemato-oncologists, who preferred to remove it at some point during the acute presentation (44.4% vs. 9.4%, respectively, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Our study findings reflect the need for uniform guidelines on permanent central catheter use and indications for its removal in the hemodynamically unstable pediatric patient. We suggest that permanent central catheter removal should be urgently considered in a deteriorating patient who failed to be stabilized with medical treatment.

WHAT IS KNOWN

• There are no guidelines for the optimal choice and timing of permanent central catheter removal in the hemodynamically unstable pediatric hemato-oncology patient with suspected catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI).

WHAT IS NEW

• We found variations in practices among pediatricians from diverse subspecialties and conflicting data in the literature. • There is a need for prospective studies to provide uniform guidelines for optimal management of suspected CRBSI in the hemodynamically unstable pediatric patient.

Early removal versus expectant management of central venous catheters in neonates with bloodstream infection

BACKGROUND

Uncertainty exists regarding the management of newborn infants with a bloodstream infection and a central venous catheter in place. The central venous catheter may act as a nidus for infecting organisms and observational studies have suggested that early removal of the catheter is associated with a lower incidence of persistent or complicated infection. However, since central venous catheters provide secure vascular access to deliver nutrition and medications, the possible harms of early removal versus expectant management also need to be considered.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of early removal versus expectant management of central venous catheters on morbidity and mortality in newborn infants with bloodstream infections.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1966 to October 2015), EMBASE (1980 to October 2015), CINAHL (1982 to October 2015), conference proceedings and previous reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared early removal versus expectant management of central venous catheters in neonates with bloodstream infections.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any eligible randomised controlled trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are no trial data to guide practice regarding early removal versus expectant management of central venous catheters in newborn infants with bloodstream infections. A simple and pragmatic randomised controlled trial is needed to resolve the uncertainty about optimal management in this common and important clinical scenario.

Antimicrobial dressings for the prevention of catheter-related infections in newborn infants with central venous catheters

BACKGROUND

Central venous catheters (CVCs) provide secured venous access in neonates. Antimicrobial dressings applied over the CVC sites have been proposed to reduce catheter-related blood stream infection (CRBSI) by decreasing colonisation. However, there may be concerns on the local and systemic adverse effects of these dressings in neonates.

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the effectiveness and safety of antimicrobial (antiseptic or antibiotic) dressings in reducing CVC-related infections in newborn infants. Had there been relevant data, we would have evaluated the effects of antimicrobial dressings in different subgroups, including infants who received different types of CVCs, infants who required CVC for different durations, infants with CVCs with and without other antimicrobial modifications, and infants who received an antimicrobial dressing with and without a clearly defined co-intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (CNRG). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 9), MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (EBCHOST), CINAHL and references cited in our short-listed articles using keywords and MeSH headings, up to September 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that compared an antimicrobial CVC dressing against no dressing or another dressing in newborn infants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data using the standard methods of the CNRG. Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and risk of bias of the retrieved records. We expressed our results using risk difference (RD) and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

Out of 173 articles screened, three studies were included. There were two comparisons: chlorhexidine dressing following alcohol cleansing versus polyurethane dressing following povidone-iodine cleansing (one study); and silver-alginate patch versus control (two studies). A total of 855 infants from level III neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) were evaluated, 705 of whom were from a single study. All studies were at high risk of bias for blinding of care personnel or unclear risk of bias for blinding of outcome assessors. There was moderate-quality evidence for all major outcomes.The single study comparing chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol cleansing against polyurethane dressing/povidone-iodine cleansing showed no significant difference in the risk of CRBSI (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.65; RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03; 655 infants, moderate-quality evidence) and sepsis without a source (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.52; RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.06; 705 infants, moderate-quality evidence). There was a significant reduction in the risk of catheter colonisation favouring chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol cleansing group (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86; RD -0.09, 95% CI -0.15 to -0.03; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 11, 95% CI 7 to 33; 655 infants, moderate-quality evidence). However, infants in the chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol cleansing group were significantly more likely to develop contact dermatitis, with 19 infants in the chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol cleansing group having developed contact dermatitis compared to none in the polyurethane dressing/povidone-iodine cleansing group (RR 43.06, 95% CI 2.61 to 710.44; RD 0.06, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.08; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 17, 95% CI 13 to 33; 705 infants, moderate-quality evidence). The roles of chlorhexidine dressing in the outcomes reported were unclear, as the two assigned groups received different co-interventions in the form of different skin cleansing agents prior to catheter insertion and during each dressing change.In the other comparison, silver-alginate patch versus control, the data for CRBSI were analysed separately in two subgroups as the two included studies reported the outcome using different denominators: one using infants and another using catheters. There were no significant differences between infants who received silver-alginate patch against infants who received standard line dressing in CRBSI, whether expressed as the number of infants (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.78; RD -0.12, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.09; 1 study, 50 participants, moderate-quality evidence) or as the number of catheters (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.89; RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.10; 1 study, 118 participants, moderate-quality evidence). There was also no significant difference between the two groups in mortality (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.05; RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.05; two studies, 150 infants, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). No adverse skin reaction was recorded in either group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on moderate-quality evidence, chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol skin cleansing reduced catheter colonisation, but made no significant difference in major outcomes like sepsis and CRBSI compared to polyurethane dressing/povidone-iodine cleansing. Chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol cleansing posed a substantial risk of contact dermatitis in preterm infants, although it was unclear whether this was contributed mainly by the dressing material or the cleansing agent. While silver-alginate patch appeared safe, evidence is still insufficient for a recommendation in practice. Future research that evaluates antimicrobial dressing should ensure blinding of caregivers and outcome assessors and ensure that all participants receive the same co-interventions, such as the skin cleansing agent. Major outcomes like sepsis, CRBSI and mortality should be assessed in infants of different gestation and birth weight.

Bench-to-bedside review: Challenges of diagnosis, care and prevention of central catheter-related bloodstream infections in children

Central venous catheters (CVCs) are indispensable in modern pediatric medicine. CVCs provide secure vascular access, but are associated with a risk of severe complications, in particular bloodstream infection. We provide a review of the recent literature about the diagnostic and therapeutic challenges of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) in children and its prevention. Variations in blood sampling and limitations in blood culturing interfere with accurate and timely diagnosis of CRBSI. Although novel molecular testing methods appear promising in overcoming some of the present diagnostic limitations of conventional blood sampling in children, they still need to solidly prove their accuracy and reliability in clinical practice. Standardized practices of catheter insertion and care remain the cornerstone of CRBSI prevention although their implementation in daily practice may be difficult. Technology such as CVC impregnation or catheter locking with antimicrobial substances has been shown less effective than anticipated. Despite encouraging results in CRBSI prevention among adults, the goal of zero infection in children is still not in range. More high-quality research is needed in the field of prevention, accurate and reliable diagnostic measures and effective treatment of CRBSI in children.