• Anesthesia and analgesia · Nov 2012

    Randomized Controlled Trial

    Prevention of intravenous bacterial injection from health care provider hands: the importance of catheter design and handling.

    • Randy W Loftus, Hetal M Patel, Bridget C Huysman, David P Kispert, Matthew D Koff, John D Gallagher, Jens T Jensen, John Rowlands, Sundara Reddy, Thomas M Dodds, Mark P Yeager, Kathryn L Ruoff, Stephen D Surgenor, and Jeremiah R Brown.
    • Department of Anesthesiology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, 1 Medical Center Dr. Lebanon, NH 03756, USA. randy.w.loftus@hitchcock.org
    • Anesth. Analg.. 2012 Nov 1;115(5):1109-19.

    BackgroundDevice-related bloodstream infections are associated with a significant increase in patient morbidity and mortality in multiple health care settings. Recently, intraoperative bacterial contamination of conventional open-lumen 3-way stopcock sets has been shown to be associated with increased patient mortality. Intraoperative use of disinfectable, needleless closed catheter devices (DNCCs) may reduce the risk of bacterial injection as compared to conventional open-lumen devices due to an intrinsic barrier to bacterial entry associated with valve design and/or the capacity for surface disinfection. However, the relative benefit of DNCC valve design (intrinsic barrier capacity) as compared to surface disinfection in attenuation of bacterial injection in the clinical environment is untested and entirely unknown. The primary aim of the current study was to investigate the relative efficacy of a novel disinfectable stopcock, the Ultraport zero, with and without disinfection in attenuating intraoperative injection of potential bacterial pathogens as compared to a conventional open-lumen stopcock intravascular device. The secondary aims were to identify risk factors for bacterial injection and to estimate the quantity of bacterial organisms injected during catheter handling.MethodsFour hundred sixty-eight operating room environments were randomized by a computer generated list to 1 of 3 device-injection schemes: (1) injection of the Ultraport zero stopcock with hub disinfection before injection, (2) injection of the Ultraport zero stopcock without prior hub disinfection, and (3) injection of the conventional open-lumen stopcock closed with sterile caps according to usual practice. After induction of general anesthesia, the primary anesthesia provider caring for patients in each operating room environment was asked to perform a series of 5 injections of sterile saline through the assigned device into an ex vivo catheter system. The primary outcome was the incidence of bacterial contamination of the injected fluid column (effluent). Risk factors for effluent contamination were identified in univariate analysis, and a controlled laboratory experiment was used to generate an estimate of the bacterial load injected for contaminated effluent samples.ResultsThe incidence of effluent bacterial contamination was 0% (0/152) for the Ultraport zero stopcock with hub disinfection before injection, 4% (7/162) for the Ultraport zero stopcock without hub disinfection before injection, and 3.2% (5/154) for the conventional open-lumen stopcock. The Ultraport zero stopcock with hub disinfection before injection was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of bacterial injection as compared to the conventional open-lumen stopcock (RR = 8.15 × 10(-8), 95% CI, 3.39 × 10(-8) to 1.96 × 10(-7), P = <0.001), with an absolute risk reduction of 3.2% (95% CI, 0.5% to 7.4%). Provider glove use was a risk factor for effluent contamination (RR = 10.48, 95% CI, 3.16 to 34.80, P < 0.001). The estimated quantity of bacteria injected reached a clinically significant threshold of 50,000 colony-forming units per each injection series.ConclusionsThe Ultraport zero stopcock with hub disinfection before injection was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of inadvertent bacterial injection as compared to the conventional open-lumen stopcock. Future studies should examine strategies designed to facilitate health care provider DNCC hub disinfection and proper device handling.

      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…