Best practice in the use of peripheral venous catheters: A scoping review and expert consensus

Background

Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are the most commonly used invasive medical device in health care with an overall failure rate of 35-50%. Most complications are non-infectious, but local site and bloodstream infections can also occur. Even if PIVC-related infections are rare, the total number of affected patients and the preponderance of Staphylococcus aureus as related pathogen due to the frequent use of these devices are relevant arguments to implement preventive strategies. The aim of this document is to raise awareness that infections caused by PIVCs are a relevant problem that can be reduced by practice change.

Methods

A panel of experts discussed this topic based on evidence and proposed practice points by consensus.

Discussion

Despite published evidence-based guidelines, current practice concerning aseptic techniques during insertion and care of PIVCs often are substandard. These devices have become commonplace and tend to be perceived as safe. An overall lack of awareness about the true risks associated with the use of PIVCs results in limited surveillance and prevention efforts.

Conclusion

Successful insertion and maintenance bundles in central venous lines are a blueprint to the implementation of adapted bundle strategies in the prevention of PIVC-associated infections. There is a need for studies to specifically investigate infection prevention in PIVCs and to agree on effective and implementable bundles.

How to improve aseptic technique to reduce bloodstream infection during vascular access procedures

Bloodstream infections associated with vascular access procedures pose a serious risk to patients that can be reduced by better standards of aseptic technique. The objectives of this roundtable of experts were to achieve a consensus on how to improve skin antisepsis in hospital, improve training, competency, compliance and consistency in skin antisepsis, review the role of devices in improving skin antisepsis, identify methods to improve skin antisepsis integrated with the Aseptic Non Touch Technique (ANTT®) approach, and identify challenges to the implementation of the panel's recommendations. Recommendations include using MHRA-licensed 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol solution with bidirectional strokes for up to 30 seconds, then leaving the skin to air dry for 30 seconds; using the ANTT Clinical Practice Framework and terminology as the standard for skin antisepsis training and practice; standardised ANTT and skin antisepsis education with 3-yearly competency assessments for all UK health professionals; and more research to address the evidence gap on transmission of infection after skin antisepsis.

Comparison of Antibiotic Use between the First Two Waves of COVID-19 in an Intensive Care Unit at a London Tertiary Centre: reducing broad-spectrum antimicrobial use did not adversely affect mortality

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic increased the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics due to diagnostic uncertainty, particularly in critical care. Multiprofessional communication became more difficult, weakening stewardship activities.

AIM

To determine changes in bacterial co-/secondary infections and antibiotics used in COVID-19 patients in critical care, and mortality rates, between the first and second waves.

METHODS

Prospective audit comparing bacterial co-/secondary infections and their treatment during the first two waves of the pandemic in a single centre teaching hospital ICU. Data on demographics, daily antibiotic use, clinical outcomes, and culture results in patients diagnosed with COVID-19 infection were collected over 11 months.

FINDINGS

From 9/3/20 to 2/9/20 (Wave 1), there were 156 patients and between 3/9/20 and 1/2/21 (Wave 2) there were 235 patients with COVID-19 infection admitted to intensive care. No significant difference was seen in mortality or positive blood culture rates between the two waves. The proportion of patients receiving antimicrobial therapy (93.0% vs 81.7%; p<0.01), and the duration of meropenem use (median (interquartile range): 5 (2-7) vs 3 (2-5) days; p=0.01) was lower in Wave 2. However, the number of patients with respiratory isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (4/156 vs 21/235; p<0.01) and bacteraemia from a respiratory source (3/156 vs 20/235 p<0.01) increased in Wave 2, associated with an outbreak of infection. There was no significant difference between waves with respect to isolation of other pathogens.

CONCLUSIONS

Reduced broad spectrum antimicrobial use in the second wave of COVID-19 compared with the first wave was not associated with significant change in mortality.

Reducing bloodstream infection with a chlorhexidine gel IV dressing

The use of vascular access devices (VAD) is common in healthcare provision but there is a significant risk of acquiring an infection. Central venous catheters (CVC) are associated with the highest risk of intravenous catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI). 3M™ Tegaderm™ CHG IV dressing is a semi-permeable transparent adhesive dressing with an integrated gel pad containing chlorhexidine gluconate 2%. This product was reviewed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in 2015, recommending that Tegaderm CHG could be used for CVC and arterial line dressings in high-dependency and intensive-care settings. This article discusses issues around CRBSI, interventions to reduce the risk of CRBSI, and the use of Tegaderm CHG dressing.