Impact of Port-A-Cath device management in cancer patients with candidaemia

Clinical impacts of delayed central venous catheter removal according to the severity of comorbidities in patients with candidaemia

BACKGROUND

The effects of early central venous catheter (CVC) removal on the clinical outcomes of patients with candidaemia remain controversial. This study evaluated the impact of delayed CVC removal on mortality according to the severity of comorbidities in patients with candidaemia.

METHODS

Patients with candidaemia in a tertiary care hospital between January 2010 and December 2017 were included retrospectively. The severity of comorbidities was classified as low [Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score ≤3] or high (CCI score ≥4). Cases with removal of CVC >2 days after the onset of candidaemia or without CVC removal were classified as having delayed CVC removal.

RESULTS

In total, 239 patients with candidaemia were included, excluding 18 who died within 2 days of onset of candidaemia. Of these, 149 had low CCI scores and 90 had high CCI scores. Septic shock [adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=9.5] and delayed CVC removal (aOR=4.7) were significantly associated with increased 30-day mortality, whereas Candida parapsilosis infection (aOR=0.2) and cerebrovascular disease (aOR=0.3) were associated with decreased 30-day mortality, in patients with low CCI scores. Septic shock (aOR=13.0) was the only risk factor for 30-day mortality in those with high CCI scores. Delayed CVC removal was associated with increased 30-day mortality in patients with low CCI scores (50.0% vs 20.3%; P=0.001), but not in those with high CCI scores (50.0% vs 47.9%; P=0.87).

CONCLUSION

Early CVC removal may improve the survival of patients with candidaemia and low CCI scores, but no such protective effect was evident in those with high CCI scores.

Central venous catheter (CVC) removal for patients of all ages with candidaemia

BACKGROUND

Candida bloodstream infections most often affect those already suffering serious, potentially life-threatening conditions and often cause significant morbidity and mortality. Most affected persons have a central venous catheter (CVC) in place. The best CVC management in these cases has been widely debated in recent years, while the incidence of candidaemia has markedly increased.

OBJECTIVES

The main purpose of this review is to examine the impact of removing versus retaining a CVC on mortality in adults and children with candidaemia who have a CVC in place.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases from inception to 3 December 2015: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid SP), EMBASE (Ovid SP), the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau (CAB), Web of Science and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We searched for missed, unreported and ongoing trials in trial registries and in reference lists of excluded articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs involving adults and children with candidaemia and in which participants were randomized for removal of a CVC (the intervention under study), irrespective of publication status, date of publication, blinding status, outcomes published or language.However, two major factors make the conduct of RCTs in this population a difficult task: the large sample size required to document the impact of catheter removal in terms of overall mortality; and lack of economic interest from the industry in conducting such a trial.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Our primary outcome measure was mortality. Several secondary outcome measures such as required time for clearance of blood cultures for Candida species, frequency of persistent candidaemia, complications, duration of mechanical ventilation and length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) and in the hospital were planned, as were various subgroup and sensitivity analyses, according to our protocol. We assessed papers and abstracts for eligibility and resolved disagreements by discussion. However, we were not able to include any RCTs or quasi-RCTS in this review and, as a result, have carried out no meta-analyses. However, we have chosen to provide a brief overview of excluded observational studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no RCT and thus no available data for evaluation of the primary outcome (mortality) nor secondary outcomes or adverse effects. Therefore, we conducted no statistical analysis.A total of 73 observational studies reported on various clinically relevant outcomes following catheter removal or catheter retention. Most of these excluded, observational studies reported a beneficial effect of catheter removal in patients with candidaemia. None of the observational studies reported results in favour of retaining a catheter. However, the observational studies were very heterogeneous with regards to population, pathogens and interventions. Furthermore, they suffered from confounding by indication and an overall high risk of bias. As a consequence, we are not able to provide recommendations or to draw firm conclusions because of the difficulties involved in interpreting the results of these observational studies (very low quality of evidence, GRADE - Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite indications from observational studies in favour of early catheter removal, we found no eligible RCTs or quasi-RCTs to support these practices and therefore could draw no firm conclusions. At this stage, RCTs have provided no evidence to support the benefit of early or late catheter removal for survival or other important outcomes among patients with candidaemia; no evidence with regards to assessment of harm or benefit with prompt central venous catheter removal and subsequent re-insertion of new catheters to continue treatment; and no evidence on optimal timing of insertion of a new central venous catheter.

Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Candidiasis: 2016 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America

It is important to realize that guidelines cannot always account for individual variation among patients. They are not intended to supplant physician judgment with respect to particular patients or special clinical situations. IDSA considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light of each patient's individual circumstances.