Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T15:46:24.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Routine Changing of Intravenous Administration Sets Does Not Reduce Colonization or Infection in Central Venous Catheters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Claire M. Rickard ,
Jeff Lipman ,
Mary Courtney ,
Rosemary Siversen  and
Peter Daley
Claire M. Rickard*
Affiliation:
Royal Brisbane Hospital, Brisbane, Australia Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia Monash University, Traralgon, Australia
Jeff Lipman
Affiliation:
Royal Brisbane Hospital, Brisbane, Australia University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
Mary Courtney
Affiliation:
Royal Brisbane Hospital, Brisbane, Australia Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
Rosemary Siversen
Affiliation:
Royal Brisbane Hospital, Brisbane, Australia
Peter Daley
Affiliation:
Royal Brisbane Hospital, Brisbane, Australia
*
School of Rural Health, Monash University, P.O. Box 424, Traralgon, Victoria 3844, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To determine the effect of routine intravenous (IV) administration set changes on central venous catheter (CVC) colonization and catheter-related bacteremia.

Design:

Prospective, randomized, controlled trial.

Setting:

Eighteen-bed intensive care unit (ICU) in a large metropolitan hospital.

Participants:

Two hundred fifty-one patients with 404 chlorhexidine gluconate and silver sulfadiazine–coated multilumen CVCs.

Interventions:

CVCs inserted in the ICU and in situ on day 4 were randomized to have their IV administration sets changed on day 4 (n = 203) or not at all (n = 201). Use of fluid containers and blood product administration sets was limited to 24 hours. CVCs were removed when not required, infection was suspected, or in place on day 7. Catheter cultures were performed on removal by blinded laboratory staff. Catheter-related bacteremia was diagnosed by a blinded intensivist using strict definitions. Data were collected regarding catheter duration, site, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score, patient age, diagnosis, hyperglycemia, hypoalbuminemia, immune status, number of fluid containers and IV injections, and administration of propofol, blood, total parenteral nutrition, or lipid infusion.

Results:

There were 10 colonized CVCs in the group receiving a set change and 19 in the group not receiving one. This difference was not statistically significant on Kaplan–Meier survival analysis. There were 3 cases of catheter-related bacteremia per group. Logistic regression found that burns diagnosis and increased ICU stay significantly predicted colonization.

Conclusion:

IV administration sets can be used for 7 days in patients with short-term, antiseptic-coated CVCs.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 25 , Issue 8 , August 2004 , pp. 650 - 655
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2004

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.Dimick, JB, Pelz, RK, Consunji, R, Swoboda, SM, Hendrix, CW, Lipsett, PA. Increased resource use associated with catheter-related bloodstream infection in the surgical intensive care unit. Arch Surg 2001;136:229–234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Pittet, D. Nosocomial bloodstream infections in the critically ill. JAMA 1994;272:1819–1820.Google Scholar
3.Maki, DG, Anderson, RL, Shulman, JA. In-use contamination of intravenous fluid. Applied Microbiology 1974;28:778–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Maki, DG, Goldmann, DA, Rhame, FS. Infection control in intravenous therapy. Ann Intern Med 1973;79:867–887.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nosocomial bacteremia associated with intravenous fluid therapy. MMWR 1971;20:81–82.Google Scholar
6.Maki, DG, Rhame, FS, Mackel, DC, Bennett, JV. Nationwide epidemic of septicemia caused by contaminated intravenous products: I. Epidemiologic and clinical features. Am J Med 1976;60:471–485.Google Scholar
7.Band, JD, Maki, DG. Safety of changing intravenous delivery systems at longer than 24-hour intervals. Ann Intern Med 1979;91:173–178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Buxton, AE, Highsmith, AK, Garner, JS, et al.Contamination of intravascular infusion fluid: effects of changing administration sets. Ann Intern Med 1979;90:764–768.Google Scholar
9.Gorbea, HF, Snydman, DR, Delaney, A, Stockman, J, Martin, WJ. Intravenous tubing with burettes can be safely changed at 48-hour intervals. JAMA 1984;251:2112–2115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.deMoissac, D, Jensen, L. Changing i.v. administration sets: is 48 versus 24 hours safe for neutropenic patients with cancer? Oncol Nurs Forum 1998;25:907–913.Google ScholarPubMed
11.Maki, DG, Botticelli, JT, LeRoy, ML, Thielke, TS. Prospective study of replacing administration sets for intravascular therapy at 48- vs 72-hour intervals: 72 hours is safe and cost-effective. JAMA 1987;258:1777–1781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Snydman, DR, Donnelly-Reidy, M, Perry, LK, Martin, WJ. Intravenous tubing containing burettes can be safely changed at 72 hour intervals. Infect Control 1987;8:113–116.Google Scholar
13.Robathan, G, Woodger, S, Merante, D. A prospective study evaluating the effects of extending total parenteral nutrition line changes to 72 hours. Journal of Intravenous Nursing 1995;18:84–87.Google ScholarPubMed
14.Matlow, AG, Kitai, I, Kirpalani, H, et al.A randomized controlled trial of 72- versus 24-hour intravenous tubing administration set changes in newborns receiving lipid therapy. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:487–493.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Cohen, DM. A replication study: analysis of bacterial contamination of intravenous administration sets in use for 72 hours. Journal of the New York State Nurses Association 1989;20:12.Google Scholar
16.Fox, M, Molesky, M, Van Aerde, JE, Muttitt, S. Changing parenteral nutrition administration sets every 24 h versus every 48 h in newborn infants. Can J Gastroenterol 1999;13:147–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Sitges-Serra, A, Linares, J, Perez, JL, Jaurrieta, E, Lorente, L, A randomized trial on the effect of tubing changes on hub contamination and catheter sepsis during parenteral nutrition. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1985;9:322–325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Josephson, A, Gombert, ME, Sierra, MF, Karanfil, LV, Tansino, GF. The relationship between intravenous fluid contamination and the frequency of tubing replacement. Infect Control 1985;6:367–370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Raad, I, Hanna, HA, Awad, A, et al.Optimal frequency of changing intravenous administration sets: is it safe to prolong use beyond 72 hours? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2001;22:136–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Jakobsen, CJ, Grabe, N, Nielsen, E, et al.Contamination of intravascular infusion systems: the effect of changing administration sets. J Hosp Infect 1986;8:217–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.O'Grady, NP, Alexander, M, Dellinger, EP, et al.Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. MMWR 2002;51:1–29.Google Scholar
22.Maki, DG, Weise, CE, Sarafin, HW. A semiquantitative culture method for identifying intravenous-catheter-related infection. N Engl J Med 1977;296:1305–1309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Bone, RC, Balk, RA, Cerra, FB, et al.Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. Chest 1992;101:1644–1655.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Fraenkel, DJ, Rickard, C, Lipman, J. Can we achieve consensus on central venous catheter-related infections? Anaesth Intensive Care 2000;28:475–490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Elliott, TSJ, Moss, HA, Tebbs, SE, et al.Novel approach to investigate a source of microbial contamination of central venous catheters. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1997;16:210–213.Google Scholar
26.Ducharme, FM, Gauthier, M, Lacroix, J, Lafleur, L. Incidence of infection related to arterial catheterization in children: a prospective study. Crit Care Med 1988;16:272–276.Google Scholar
27.Polderman, KH, Girbes, ARJ. Central venous catheter use: Part 2. infectious complications. Intensive Care Med 2002;28:18–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Veenstra, DL, Saint, S, Saha, S, Lumley, T, Sullivan, SD. Efficacy of antiseptic-impregnated central venous catheters in preventing catheter-related bloodstream infection: a meta-analysis. JAMA 1999;281:261–267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.Google Scholar
30.Eggimann, P, Pittett, D. Catheter-related infections in the ICU. In: Vincent, JL, ed. Yearbook of Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine. Berlin: Springer Verlag; 2000:95–110.Google Scholar
31.O'Malley, MK, Rhame, FS, Cerra, FB, McComb, RC. Value of routine pressure monitoring system changes after 72 hours of continuous use. Crit Care Med 1994;22:1424–1430.Google Scholar
32.Chen, YY, Lin, M, Lin, MY, Wang, FD, Liu, JH, Chang, MS. The central venous tubing change associated with catheter-related infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000;21:94.Google Scholar
33.Rickard, C, Wallis, SC, Courtney, M, Lipman, J, Daley, PJP. Intravascular administration sets are accurate and in appropriate condition after 7 days of continuous use: an in vitro study. J Adv Nurs 2002;37:330–337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34.Walters, AJ. A Heideggerian hermeneutic study of the practice of critical care nurses. J Adv Nurs 1995;21:492–497.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed