Catheter infection control in parenteral nutrition

Association between parenteral nutrition-containing intravenous lipid emulsion and bloodstream infections in patients with single-lumen central venous access: A secondary analysis of a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Distinguishing primary bloodstream infections (BSIs) related to central venous access devices (CVADs) from those that occur through other mechanisms, such as a damaged mucosal barrier, is difficult.

METHODS

Secondary analysis was conducted on data from patients with CVADs that were collected for a large, randomized trial. Patients were divided into two groups: those who received parenteral nutrition (PN)-containing intravenous lipid emulsion (ILE) and those who did not have PN-containing ILE. This study investigated the influence of PN-containing ILE (ILE PN) on primary BSIs in patients with a CVAD.

RESULTS

Of the 807 patients, 180 (22%) received ILE PN. Most (627/807; 73%) were recruited from the hematology and hematopoietic stem cell transplant unit, followed by surgical (90/807; 11%), trauma and burns (61/807; 8%), medical (44/807; 5%), and oncology (23/807; 3%). When primary BSI was differentiated as a central line-associated BSI (CLABSI) or mucosal barrier injury laboratory-confirmed BSI (MBI-LCBI), the incidence of CLABSI was similar in the ILE PN and non-ILE PN groups (15/180 [8%] vs 57/627 [9%]; P = 0.88) and the incidence of MBI-LCBI was significantly different between groups (31/180 [17%] ILE PN vs 41/627 [7%] non-ILE PN; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Our data indicate that twice as many primary BSIs in ILE PN patients are due to MBIs than CVADs. It is important to consider the MBI-LCBI classification, as some CLABSI prevention efforts aimed at CVADs for the ILE PN population may be better directed to gastrointestinal tract protection interventions.

Does Parenteral Nutrition Increase the Risk of Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infection? A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Central venous access devices (CVADs) are used for parenteral nutrition (PN) delivery. We systematically reviewed research-based publications that reported comparative rates of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) in patients with CVADs who received PN vs those who did not receive PN therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The literature search included the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PubMed up to July 14, 2015, to identity studies that compared patients with a CVAD who did and did not have PN therapy.

RESULTS

Eleven observational studies were identified, comprising 2854 participants with 6287 CVADs. Six studies produced significant results in favor of non-PN, 4 studies showed no evidence of a difference between PN and non-PN, and 1 study produced significant results in favor of PN when analyzed per patient with multiple CVADs. Incidence ranged from 0 to 6.6 CRBSIs per 1000 CVAD days in the PN patients and 0.39 to 3.6 CRBSIs per 1000 CVAD days in the non-PN patients. The Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool for nonrandomized studies of interventions was used. Eight studies were rated as moderate risk of bias, 2 as serious, and 1 as critical.

CONCLUSION

The data presented in this systematic review are not sufficient to establish whether patients receiving PN are more at risk of developing CRBSI than those who do not. Future PN studies needs to adjust for baseline imbalances and improve quality and reporting.

The microbiological and clinical outcome of guide wire exchanged versus newly inserted antimicrobial surface treated central venous catheters

INTRODUCTION

The management of suspected central venous catheter (CVC)-related sepsis by guide wire exchange (GWX) is not recommended. However, GWX for new antimicrobial surface treated (AST) triple lumen CVCs has never been studied. We aimed to compare the microbiological outcome of triple lumen AST CVCs inserted by GWX (GWX-CVCs) with newly inserted triple lumen AST CVCs (NI-CVCs).

METHODS

We studied a cohort of 145 consecutive patients with GWX-CVCs and contemporaneous site-matched control cohort of 163 patients with NI-CVCs in a tertiary intensive care unit (ICU).

RESULTS

GWX-CVC and NI-CVC patients were similar for mean age (58.7 vs. 62.2 years), gender (88 (60.7%) vs. 98 (60.5%) male) and illness severity on admission (mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) III: 71.3 vs. 72.2). However, GWX patients had longer median ICU lengths of stay (12.2 vs. 4.4 days; P < 0.001) and median hospital lengths of stay (30.7 vs. 18.0 days; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference with regard to the number of CVC tips with bacterial or fungal pathogen colonization among GWX-CVCs vs. NI-CVCs (5 (2.5%) vs. 6 (7.4%); P = 0.90). Catheter-associated blood stream infection (CA-BSI) occurred in 2 (1.4%) GWX patients compared with 3 (1.8%) NI-CVC patients (P = 0.75). There was no significant difference in hospital mortality (35 (24.1%) vs. 48 (29.4%); P = 0.29).

CONCLUSIONS

GWX-CVCs and NI-CVCs had similar rates of tip colonization at removal, CA-BSI and mortality. If the CVC removed by GWX is colonized, a new CVC must then be inserted at another site. In selected ICU patients at higher central vein puncture risk receiving AST CVCs GWX may be an acceptable initial approach to line insertion.