Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-02T05:17:50.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Randomized Study Comparing a Transparent Polyurethane Dressing to a Dry Gauze Dressing for Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Sites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Donald E. Craven ,
Deborah A. Lichtenberg ,
Laureen M. Kunches ,
Ann T. McDonough ,
Maria I. Gonzalez ,
Timothy C. Heeren  and
William R. McCabe
Donald E. Craven*
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Departments of Medicine, Epidemiology and Nursing, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston City Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
Deborah A. Lichtenberg
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Departments of Medicine, Epidemiology and Nursing, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston City Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
Laureen M. Kunches
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Departments of Medicine, Epidemiology and Nursing, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston City Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
Ann T. McDonough
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Departments of Medicine, Epidemiology and Nursing, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston City Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
Maria I. Gonzalez
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Departments of Medicine, Epidemiology and Nursing, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston City Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
Timothy C. Heeren
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Departments of Medicine, Epidemiology and Nursing, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston City Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
William R. McCabe
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Departments of Medicine, Epidemiology and Nursing, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston City Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
*
Hospital Epidemiology Section, Maxwell Finland Laboratory for Infectious Diseases, Boston City Hospital, Boston, MA 02118
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We studied rates of peripheral intravenous (IV) catheter tip and insertion site colonization after randomly assigning patients to transparent polyurethane (TP) dressings (N=316) or dry gauze (DG) dressings (N=421). The study was conducted during both summer and fall seasons, in a facility which lacked air conditioning. All patients had a teflon plastic catheter inserted, maintained and cultured by a member of the IV therapy team; no antibiotic or antiseptic ointments were used. Colonization rates were higher in the summer than in the fall for both catheter tips (9.0% vs 3.5%, p=0.005) and sites (21.6% vs 7.0%, p=0.001). During the summer season, the rate of catheter tip colonization with TP dressings was nearly twice that of DG dressings (12.4% vs 6.8%, p=0.04). Logistic regression analysis indicated that catheter tip colonization was associated with the summer season (odds ratio=3.0, 95% CI 1.4-6.2) and TP dressings (odds ratio=1.8, 95% CI 1.1-3.2), and that site colonization was associated with both summer (odds ratio=4.0, 95% CI 2.2-7.1) and receipt of antibiotics (odds ratio=1.9, 95% CI 1.1-3.2). Coagulase-negative staphylococci were isolated from 55.5% of the colonized catheter tips and insertion sites. The data suggest that bacterial colonization of peripheral IV catheters is increased in summer, and that use of TP dressings may increase both tip colonization and cost nearly twofold.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 6 , Issue 9 , September 1985 , pp. 361 - 366
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Maki, DG, Goldmann, DA, Rhame, FS: Infection control in intravenous therapy. Ann Intern Med 1973;79:867–887.Google Scholar
2.Simmons, BP, Hooton, TM, Wong, ES, et al: Guideline for prevention of intravascular infections. Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia, October 1981, pp 1–6.Google Scholar
3.Collins, RN, Braun, PA, Zinner, SH, et al: Risks of local and systemic infection with polyethylene intravenous catheters. N Engl J Med 1968;279:340–343.Google Scholar
4.Bentley, DW, Lepper, MH: Septicemia related to indwelling venous catheter. JAMA 1968;206:1749–1752.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Rhame, FS, Maki, DG, Bennett, JV: Intravenous cannula-associated infections, in Bennett, JV, Brachman, PS (eds): Hospital Infection. Boston, Little, Brown & Company, 1979, pp 433–442.Google Scholar
6.Tully, JL, Friedland, GH, Goldmann, DA: Complications of intravenous therapy with steel needles and small bore teflon catheters. Am J Med 1981;70:702–706.Google Scholar
7.Maki, DG, Weise, CE, Sarafin, HW: A semiquantitative culture method for identifying intravenous-catheter-related infection. N Engl J Med 1977;296:1305–1309.Google Scholar
8.Maki, DG, Band, JD: Study of polyantibiotic and iodophor ointments in prevention of vascular catheter-related infection. Am J Med 1981;70:739–744.Google Scholar
9.Winter, GD: Healing of skin wounds and the influence of dressings on the repair process, in Harkiss, KJ (ed): Surgical Dressings and Wound Heating. London, Bradford University Press, 1971, pp 46–60.Google Scholar
10.Sanderson, B: An advance in wound care. Queens Nursing Journal 1976;12:253–354.Google Scholar
11.Thomas, MA: Op-site wound care for subclavian line care. JPEN 1977;1:41A.Google Scholar
12.Centers for Disease Control, Recommendations for the prevention of IV associated infections. Atlanta, Ga., August, 1973, pp 616–620.Google Scholar
13.Armitage, P: Statistical Methods and Medical Research. New York, Wiley and Sons, 1971.Google Scholar
14.Kelsey, MC, Gosling, M: A comparison of the morbidity associated with occlusive and non-occlusive dressings applied to peripheral intravenous devices. J Hosp Inf 1984;5:313–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Nicola, M, DeChairo, D: A transparent polyurethane membrane used as an IV dressing. Journal of the National Intravenous Therapy Association 1984;7:139–142.Google Scholar
16.Irwin, GR, Hart, RJ, Martin, CM: Pathogenesis and prevention of intravenous catheter infection. Yale J Biol Med 1973;46:83–87.Google Scholar
17.Marples, RR: The effect of hydration on bacterial flora of the skin, in Mailback, HI, Hildick-Smith, G (eds): Skin Bacteria and Their Role in Infection. New York, McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., 1965, p 33.Google Scholar
18.Pillsbury, DM: A Manual of Dermatology, Philadelphia, W.B. Saunders Company, 1971, p 149.Google Scholar
19.Stratton, CW: Infection related to intravenous infusion. Heart and Lung 1982;11:123–135.Google Scholar
20.Lowy, FD, Hammer, SM: Staphylococcus epidermidis infections. Ann Intern Med 1983;99:834–839.Google Scholar
21.Christensen, GD, Bisno, AL, Parisi, JT, et al: Nosocomial septicemia due to multiple antibiotic-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis. Ann Intern Med 1982;96:1–10.Google Scholar
22.Powell, C, Regan, C, Fabri, PJ, et al: Evaluation of Op-site catheter dressings for parenteral nutrition: A prospective, randomized study. JPEN 1982;6:43–46.Google Scholar