• Critical care medicine · Mar 2006

    Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study

    A prospective, randomized trial of rifampicin-minocycline-coated and silver-platinum-carbon-impregnated central venous catheters.

    • David Fraenkel, Claire Rickard, Peter Thomas, Joan Faoagali, Narelle George, and Robert Ware.
    • Department of Intensive Care, Princess Alexandra Hospital, and School of Population Health, University of Queensland, Australia.
    • Crit. Care Med. 2006 Mar 1;34(3):668-75.

    ObjectiveCentral venous catheters are the predominant cause of nosocomial bacteremia; however, the effectiveness of different antimicrobial central venous catheters remains uncertain. We compared the infection rate of silver-platinum-carbon (SPC)-impregnated catheters with rifampicin-minocycline (RM)-coated catheters.DesignA large, single-center, prospective randomized study.SettingTwenty-two-bed adult general intensive care unit in a large tertiary metropolitan hospital in Brisbane, Australia (2000-2001).PatientsConsecutive series of all central venous catheterizations in intensive care unit patients.InterventionsRandomization, concealment, and blinding were carefully performed. Catheter insertion and care were performed according to published guidelines. Blood cultures were taken at central venous catheter removal, and catheter-tip cultures were performed by both roll-plate and sonication techniques. Pulsed field gel electrophoresis was used to establish shared clonal origin for matched isolates.Measurements And Main ResultsCentral venous catheter colonization and catheter-related bloodstream infection were determined with a blinded technique using the evaluation of the extensive microbiological and clinical data collected and a rigorous classification system. Six hundred forty-six central venous catheters (RM 319, SPC 327) were inserted, and 574 (89%) were microbiologically evaluable. Colonization rates were lower for the RM catheters than SPC catheters (25 of 280, 8.9%; 43 of 294, 14.6%; p=.039). A Kaplan-Meier analysis that included catheter time in situ did not quite achieve statistical significance (p=.055). Catheter-related bloodstream infection was infrequent for both catheter-types (RM 4, 1.4%; SPC 5, 1.7%).ConclusionsThe SPC catheter is a clinically effective antimicrobial catheter; however, the RM catheter had a lower colonization rate. Both catheter types had low rates of catheter-related bloodstream infection. These results indicate that future studies will require similar rigorous methodology and thousands of central venous catheters to demonstrate differences in catheter-related bloodstream infection rates.

      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…