• Critical care medicine · Feb 2012

    Multicenter Study Comparative Study

    Zero risk for central line-associated bloodstream infection: are we there yet?.

    • Mary-Louise McLaws and Anthony R Burrell.
    • School of Public Health and Community Medicine, the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. m.mclaws@unsw.edu.au
    • Crit. Care Med.. 2012 Feb 1;40(2):388-93.

    ObjectiveIdentify the longest period a central line remains free from central line-associated bloodstream infection during an 18-month insertion-bundle project.DesignProspective cohort.SettingNew South Wales adult intensive care units at university teaching hospitals between July 2007 and December 2008.PatientsIntensive care unit adult patients whose central line was inserted in the intensive care unit.InterventionCompliance with the insertion bundle for central lines during the first 12-month roll-out period and the last 6 months.Main OutcomesThe cumulative line days that remained close to infection-free before the lowest probability of central line-associated bloodstream infection, 1 in 100 chances, was identified using conditional probability modeling. An adjusted central line-associated bloodstream infection rate was calculated for these cumulated line days and thereafter where the probability for infection increased with additional dwell time.ResultsThe lowest probability identified for central line-associated bloodstream infection was 1 in 100 chances regardless of the phase of the project or central line type. During the first 12 months of the project, the close to infection-free period finished by the end of day 7 giving an adjusted central line-associated bloodstream infection rate of 1.8 (95% confidence interval 0.9-3.3)/1000 line days. By the last 6 months of the project the close to infection-free period was extended by 2 additional line days to the end of day 9, giving an adjusted central line-associated bloodstream infection rate of 0.9 (95% confidence interval 0.5-1.5)/1,000 line days. For dialysis and unspecified central line types, the close to infection-free period was extended by 5 additional line days, from day 2 with a rate of 4.3 (95% confidence interval 0.9-12.5)/1,000 line days to day 7, giving a rate of 0.6 (95% confidence interval 0.2-2.4)/1,000 line days.ConclusionThe success of the insertion bundle was identified by improved analysis that identified that the safest dwell time was extended to the first 9 days for centrally inserted lines and up to day 7 for dialysis, peripherally inserted central catheters, and unspecified central line types. Given that three quarters of intensive care unit patients have their central line removed by day 7, zero risk for central line-associated bloodstream infection should be achievable in the majority of patients where clinicians comply with the clinician and patient insertion bundles.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,694,794 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.