Culture methods to evaluate central venous catheter sepsis

Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheters Are Not Superior to Central Venous Catheters in the Acute Care of Surgical Patients on the Ward

BACKGROUND

Peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) have supplanted central venous catheters (CVC) for the administration of intravenous antibiotics and total parenteral nutrition to patients in our hospital. From the literature, it appears that this change has occurred in a number of other surgical units. Accounting for the change are the expected advantages of low complication rates at insertion, prolonged use without complications and interruption, and cost- and time-savings.

METHODS

We have proceeded with a review of the literature to understand and justify this change in practice. Our hypothesis was that the routine adoption of PICC instead of CVC for the acute care of surgical patients has occurred in the absence of strong scientific evidence. Our aim was to compare the associated infectious, thrombotic, phlebitic, and other common complications, as well as PICC and CVC durability. Articles concerning various aspects of PICC- and CVC-related complications in the acute care of adult patients were selected from the literature. Studies were excluded when they primarily addressed the use of long-term catheters, outpatient care, and pediatric patients. Data were extracted from 48 papers published between 1979 and 2004.

RESULTS

Our results show that infectious complications do not significantly differ between PICC and CVC. Thrombotic complications appear to be more significant with PICC and to occur early after catheterization. Phlebitic complications accounted for premature catheter removal in approximately 6% of PICC. Finally, prospective data suggest that approximately 40% of PICC will have to be removed before completion of therapy, possibly more often and earlier than CVC.

CONCLUSIONS

We believe that there is no clear evidence that PICC is superior to CVC in acute care settings. Each approach offers its own advantages and a different profile of complications. Therefore, the choice of central venous access should be individualized for surgical patients on the ward. More comparative prospective studies are needed to document the advantages of PICC over CVC.

Central venous catheter use and the risk of infection in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a report from the Children's Cancer Group

PURPOSE

To describe patterns of central venous catheter (CVC) use and determine the risk of infection associated with a catheter in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Children with ALL (n = 1934), participating in Children's Cancer Group studies for good-prognosis ALL (CCG-1881) and intermediate-risk ALL (CCG-1891) were evaluated in a retrospective case-control study. The presence of a catheter and the occurrence of infectious complications were recorded after each treatment phase.

RESULTS

Young age and enrollment in the intermediate-risk study were associated with higher rates of catheter use. During each of the first four phases of therapy, the adjusted risk of infection was two- to fourfold higher when a catheter was in place. The proportion of patients with infection during the first four phases of therapy was 2.6 times higher with a CVC (14.4% versus 5.7%). Catheter use was associated with significantly increased hospitalization rates during induction, consolidation, and interim maintenance, but not during delayed intensification. A catheter did not significantly increase the risk of fever during neutropenia.

CONCLUSION

The presence of a CVC increases the risk of infection during the early phases of low-intensity therapy for ALL.

Counting the cost: hospital versus home central venous catheter survival

We compared catheter survival and sepsis rates in a tertiary paediatric gastroenterology centre with those at home in the same patients. We examined whether there were differences in the safety in the two locations, and estimated the financial and opportunity cost implications of any difference. We used survival analysis to analyse differences. Surgical records were audited to determine venous access workload, and to estimate cost implications. Twenty patients with chronic intestinal failure but stable parenteral nutrition requirements, ranging from 0.04-15.83 years of age were studied. The duration of line survival and sepsis-free intervals and rates of re-operation for venous access were determined to estimate morbidity and costs. The study encompassed 28 patient-years in hospital and 48 patient-years at home. There was a significant reduction in the rate of sepsis at home compared with hospital (Z = 4.30, P < 0.00001), and a similar improvement in line survival (Z = 4.36, P < 0.00001). Line insertions accounted for 21% of minor surgery in our hospital, one third being reinsertions. We conclude that central venous catheter sepsis rates are greatly improved at home. If home results could be achieved in the hospital setting, considerable cost savings would be made.