Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-246sw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-22T11:52:04.956Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of multiple concurrent central lines on central-line–associated bloodstream infection rates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2019

Jesse Couk Open the ORCID record for Jesse Couk [Opens in a new window] ,
Sheri Chernetsky Tejedor ,
James P. Steinberg ,
Chad Robichaux  and
Jesse T. Jacob Open the ORCID record for Jesse T. Jacob [Opens in a new window]
Jesse Couk
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia Present affiliation: Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC
Sheri Chernetsky Tejedor
Affiliation:
Division of Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia Emory Healthcare, Atlanta, Georgia
James P. Steinberg
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
Chad Robichaux
Affiliation:
Emory Healthcare, Atlanta, Georgia
Jesse T. Jacob*
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
*
Author for correspondence: Jesse T. Jacob, MD, Orr Building #1018, 550 Peachtree St NE, Atlanta, GA 30308. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

The current methodology for calculating central-line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates, used for pay-for-performance measures, does not account for multiple concurrent central lines.

Objective:

To compare CLABSI rates using standard National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) denominators to rates accounting for multiple concurrent central lines.

Design:

Descriptive analysis and retrospective cohort analysis.

Methods:

We identified all adult patients with central lines at 2 academic medical centers over an 18-month period. CLABSI rates were calculated for intensive care units (ICUs) and non-ICUs using the standard NHSN methodology and denominator (a patient could only have 1 central-line day for a given patient day) and a modified denominator (number of central lines in 1 patient in 1 day count as number of line days). We also compared characteristics of patients with and without multiple concurrent central lines.

Results:

Among 18,521 hospital admissions, there were 156,574 central-line days and 239 CLABSIs (ICU, 105; non-ICU, 134). Our modified denominator reduced CLABSI rates by 25% in ICUs (1.95 vs 1.47 per 1,000 line days) and 6% (1.30 vs 1.22 per 1,000 line days) in non-ICUs. Patients with multiple concurrent central lines were more likely to be in an ICU, to have a longer admission, to have a dialysis catheter, and to have a CLABSI.

Conclusions:

Using the number of central lines as the denominator decreased CLABSI rates in ICUs by 25%. The presence of multiple concurrent central lines may be a marker of severity of illness. The risk of CLABSI per lumen of a central line is similar in ICUs compared to wards.

Type
Original Article
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 40 , Issue 9 , September 2019 , pp. 1019 - 1023
Copyright
© 2019 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved. 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Dudeck, MA, Weiner, LM, Allen-Bridson, K, et al. National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) report, data summary for 2012, device-associated module. Am J Infect Control 2013;41:1148–1166.Google ScholarPubMed
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;81:1159–1171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Centers for Disease C, Prevention. Vital signs: central line-associated blood stream infections—United States, 2001, 2008, and 2009. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2011;60:243–248.Google Scholar
Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Data tables from National and State Healthcare Associated Infections Progress Report, 2016. Atlanta, GA: DC; 2016.Google Scholar
Scott, RD, 2nd. The direct medical costs of healthcare-associated infections in US hospitals and the benefits of prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. https://www.cdc.gov/hai/pdfs/hai/scott_costpaper.pdf. Published 2009. Accessed June 11, 2019.Google Scholar
Talbot, TR, Bratzler, DW, Carrico, RM, et al. Public reporting of health care-associated surveillance data: recommendations from the healthcare infection control practices advisory committee. Ann Intern Med 2013;159:631–635.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Operational guidance for acute-care hospitals to report central-line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) data to CDC’s NHSN for the purpose of fulfilling CMS’s hospital inpatient quality reporting (IQR) requirements, 2014. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/PDFs/CMS/Final-ACH-CLABSI-Guidance-2015.pdf. Published 2015. Accessed August 16, 2015.Google Scholar
Niedner, MF, National Association of Children’s Health, et al. The harder you look, the more you find: catheter-associated bloodstream infection surveillance variability. Am J Infect Control 2010;38:585–595.Google ScholarPubMed
Steinberg, JP, Coffin, SE. Improving the central line-associated bloodstream infection surveillance definition: a work in progress. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:777–779.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sexton, DJ, Chen, LF, Anderson, DJ. Current definitions of central line-associated bloodstream infection: is the emperor wearing clothes? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31:1286–1289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Concannon, C, van Wijngaarden, E, Stevens, V, Dumyati, G. The effect of multiple concurrent central venous catheters on central line-associated bloodstream infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;35:1140–1146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aslakson, RA, Romig, M, Galvagno, SM, et al. Effect of accounting for multiple concurrent catheters on central-line–associated bloodstream infection rates: practical data supporting a theoretical concern. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32:121–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scheithauer, S, Hafner, H, Schroder, J, et al. Simultaneous placement of multiple central lines increases central-line–associated bloodstream infection rates. Am J Infect Control 2013;41:113–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Talbot, TR, Johnson, JG, Anders, T, Hayes, RM. Comparison of NHSN-defined central venous catheter day counts with a method that accounts for concurrent catheters. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015;36:107–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tejedor, SC, Garrett, G, Jacob, JT, et al. Electronic documentation of central venous catheter days: validation is essential. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:900–907.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horan, TC, Andrus, M, Dudeck, MA. CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of healthcare-associated infection and criteria for specific types of infections in the acute-care setting. Am J Infect Control 2008;36:309–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Device-associated Module BSI. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/PDFs/pscManual/4PSC_CLABScurrent.pdf. Accessed June 24, 2015.Google Scholar
See, I, Iwamoto, M, Allen-Bridson, K, Horan, T, Magill, SS, Thompson, ND. Mucosal barrier injury laboratory-confirmed bloodstream infection: results from a field test of a new National Healthcare Safety Network definition. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:769–776.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teaching hospitals hit hardest by medicare fines for patient safety. National Public Radio website. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/12/19/371862146/teaching-hospitals-hit-hardest-by-medicare-fines-for-patient-safety. Published 2014. Accessed August 15, 2015.Google Scholar
Templeton, A, Schlegel, M, Fleisch, F, et al. Multilumen central venous catheters increase risk for catheter-related bloodstream infection: prospective surveillance study. Infection 2008;36:322–327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zingg, W, Sax, H, Inan, C, et al. Hospital-wide surveillance of catheter-related bloodstream infection: from the expected to the unexpected. J Hosp Infect 2009;73:41–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marschall, J, Mermel, LA, Fakih, M, et al. Strategies to prevent central line-associated bloodstream infections in acute-care hospitals: 2014 update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;35 suppl 2:S89–S107.Google ScholarPubMed
Seddon, ME, Hocking, CJ, Bryce, EA, Hillman, J, McCoubrie, V. From ICU to hospital-wide: extending central-line–associated bacteraemia (CLAB) prevention. N Z Med J 2014;127:60–71.Google ScholarPubMed
Tejedor, SC, Tong, D, Stein, J, et al. Temporary central venous catheter utilization patterns in a large tertiary care center: tracking the “idle central venous catheter.” Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33:50–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, SS, Leekha, S, Magder, LS, et al. The effect of adding comorbidities to current centers for disease control and prevention central-line–associated bloodstream infection risk-adjustment methodology. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:1019–1024.Google ScholarPubMed