Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T13:35:34.968Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Temporary Central Venous Catheter Utilization Patterns in a Large Tertiary Care Center Tracking the “Idle Central Venous Catheter”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Sheri Chernetsky Tejedor ,
David Tong ,
Jason Stein ,
Christina Payne ,
Daniel Dressler ,
Wenqiong Xue  and
James P. Steinberg
Sheri Chernetsky Tejedor*
Affiliation:
Division of Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia Information Services, Emory Healthcare, Atlanta, Georgia
David Tong
Affiliation:
Division of Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
Jason Stein
Affiliation:
Division of Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia Information Services, Emory Healthcare, Atlanta, Georgia
Christina Payne
Affiliation:
Division of Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
Daniel Dressler
Affiliation:
Division of Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
Wenqiong Xue
Affiliation:
Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
James P. Steinberg
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
*
Division of Hospital Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, 1364 Clifton Road NE, Box M-7, Atlanta, GA 30322 ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives.

Although central venous catheter (CVC) dwell time is a major risk factor for catheter-related bloodstream infections (CR-BSIs), few studies reveal how often CVCs are retained when not needed (“idle”). We describe use patterns for temporary CVCs, including peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), on non-ICU wards.

Design.

A retrospective observational study.

Setting.

A 579-bed acute care, academic tertiary care facility.

Methods.

A retrospective observational study of a random sample of patients on hospital wards who have a temporary, nonimplanted CVC, with a focus on on daily ward CVC justification. A uniform definition of idle CVC-days was used.

Results.

We analyzed 89 patients with 146 CVCs (56% of which were PICCs); of 1,433 ward CVC-days, 361 (25.2%) were idle. At least 1 idle day was observed for 63% of patients. Patients had a mean of 4.1 idle days and a mean of 3.4 days with both a CVC and a peripheral intravenous catheter (PIV). After adjusting for ward length of stay, mean CVC dwell time was 14.4 days for patients with PICCs versus 9.0 days for patients with non-PICC temporary CVCs (other CVCs; P< .001). Patients with a PICC had 5.4 days in which they also had a PIV, compared with 10 days in other CVC patients (P< .001). Patients with PICCs had more days in which the only justification for the CVC was intravenous administration of antimicrobial agents (8.5 vs 1.6 days; P = .0013).

Conclusions.

Significant proportions of ward CVC-days were unjustified. Reducing “idle CVC-days” and facilitating the appropriate use of PIVs may reduce CVC-days and CR-BSI risk.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33(1):50-57

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , January 2012 , pp. 50 - 57
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2012

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. Climo, M, Diekema, D, Warren, DK, et al. Prevalence of the use of central venous access devices within and outside of the intensive care unit: results of a survey among hospitals in the Prevention Epicenter Program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24:942–945.Google Scholar
2. Srinivasan, A, Wise, M, Bell, M, et al. Vital signs: central line-associated blood stream infections—United States, 2001, 2008, and 2009. MMWR Morb Mort Wkly Rep 2011;60(8):243–248.Google Scholar
3. Trick, WE, Miranda, J, Evans, AT, et al. Prospective cohort study of central venous catheters among internal medicine ward patients. Am J Infect Control 2006;34:636–641.Google Scholar
4. NINSS reports on surgical site infection and hospital acquired bacteraemia. Commun Dis Rep Wkly 2000;10:213, 216.Google Scholar
5. Moro, ML, Vigano, F, Lepri, AC, et al. Risk factors for central venous catheter-related infections in surgical and intensive care units. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994;15:253–264.Google Scholar
6. McLaws, ML, Berry, G. Nonuniform risk of bloodstream infection with increasing central venous catheter-days. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2005;26:715–719.Google Scholar
7. Milstone, AM, Sengupta, A. Do prolonged peripherally inserted central venous catheter dwell times increase the risk of bloodstream infection? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31:1184–1187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. O'Grady, N, Alexander, M, Burns, LA, et al. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Clin Infect Dis 2011;52(9):e162–e163.Google Scholar
9. Edwards, JR, Peterson, KD, Andrus, ML, et al. National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) Report, data summary for 2006, issued June 2007. Am J Infect Control 2007;35:290–301.Google Scholar
10. Lederle, FA, Parenti, CM, Berskow, LC, et al. The idle intravenous catheter. Ann Intern Med 1992;116:737–738.Google Scholar
11. Parenti, CM, Lederle, FA, Impola, CL, et al. Reduction of unnecessary intravenous catheter use; internal medicine housestaff participate in a successful quality improvement project. Arch Intern Med 1994;154:1829–1832.Google Scholar
12. Trick, WE, Vernon, MO, Welbel, SF, et al. Unnecessary use of central venous catheters: the need to look outside the intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004;25:266–268.Google Scholar
13. Tiwari, MM, Hermsen, ED, Charlton, ME, et al. Inappropriate intravascular device use: a prospective study. J Hosp Infect 2011;78:128–132.Google Scholar
14. Safdar, N, Maki, DG. Risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection with peripherally inserted central venous catheters used in hospitalized patients. Chest 2005;128:489–495.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Periard, D, Monney, P, Waeber, G, et al. Randomized controlled trial of peripherally inserted central catheters vs. peripheral catheters for middle duration in-hospital intravenous therapy. J Thromb Haemost 2008;6:1281–1288.Google Scholar
16. Maki, DG, Kluger, DM, Crnich, CJ. The risk of bloodstream infection in adults with different intravascular devices: a systematic review of 200 published prospective studies. Mayo Clin Proc 2006;81(9):1159–1171.Google Scholar
17. Ajenjo, MC, Morley, JC, Russo, AJ, et al. Peripherally inserted central venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections in hospitalized adult patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32(2):125–130.Google Scholar
18. Marschall, J, Mermel, LA, Classen, D, et al. Strategies to prevent central line-associated bloodstream infections in acute care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29:S22–S30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Webster, J, Osborne, S, Rickard, C, Hall, J. Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;3:CD007798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Milstone, AM, Sengupta, A. Do prolonged peripherally inserted central venous catheter dwell times increase the risk of bloodstream infection? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31:1184–1187.Google Scholar
21. Stone, B. Ultrasound guidance for peripheral venous access: a simplified Seldinger technique. Anesthesiology 2007;106:195.Google Scholar
22. Brannam, L, Blaivas, M, Lyon, M, et al. Emergency nurses' utilization of ultrasound guidance for placement of peripheral intravenous lines in difficult-access patients. Acad Emerg Med 2004;11(12):1361–1363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Blaivas, M, Lyon, M. The effect of ultrasound guidance on the perceived difficulty of emergency nurse-obtained peripheral IV access. J Emerg Med 2006;31(4):407–410.Google Scholar
24. Costantino, TG, Parikh, AK, Satz, WA, et al. Ultrasonography-guided peripheral intravenous access versus traditional approaches in patients with difficult intravenous access. Ann Emerg Med 2005;46(5):456–461.Google Scholar
25. Panebianco, NL, Fredette, JM, Szyld, D, et al. What you see (sonographically) is what you get: vein and patient characteristics associated with successful ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous placement in patients with difficult access. Acad Emerg Med 2009;16:1–6.Google Scholar