Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T19:48:55.539Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections in Pediatric Intensive-Care–Unit Patients Associated With a Needleless Device and Intermittent Intravenous Therapy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

L. Clifford McDonald ,
Shailen N. Banerjee  and
William R. Jarvis
L. Clifford McDonald
Affiliation:
Hospital Infections Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
Shailen N. Banerjee
Affiliation:
Hospital Infections Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
William R. Jarvis*
Affiliation:
Hospital Infections Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
*
Hospital Infections Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd, MS E69, Atlanta, GA 30333; e-mail [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives:

To determine risk factors for an increase in line-associated bloodstream infections (BSIs) in three pediatric intensive-care units at one hospital that recently had changed brands of needleless access device.

Design:

Retrospective case-control studies; review of the units' infection control policies and procedures for accessing and replacing components of needleless access devices.

Setting:

A community tertiary-care hospital's three pediatric intensive-care units.

Patients:

Children in one of the three intensive-care units with a central venous catheter in place during January 1, 1995, through May 15, 1996, who developed laboratory-confirmed primary BSI. Children who had central venous catheters in place for >48 hours and who did not develop BSI were chosen randomly as controls.

Results:

Eight patients met the case definition; they had 11 episodes of BSI. Multivariate analysis identified duration of catheterization and exposure to the IVAC first-generation needleless device as independent risk factors for BSI. Compared with patients from another pediatric intensive-care unit in which the IVAC device also was used but in which an increased BSI rate did not occur, patients from the unit with an increased BSI rate were more likely to receive intermittent (vs continuous) intravenous therapy through one or more lumens. In both units, the IVAC device valve component was replaced every 6 days, and the endcap used to cover the valve (when connected to an unused lumen) was replaced every 24 hours or after each access. The BSI rate returned to baseline after institution of a policy to replace the entire IVAC device, valve, and endcap every 24 hours.

Conclusions:

An increased risk of BSI was associated with use of the IVAC first-generation needleless device when replaced every 6 days. This increased risk may have been more pronounced in one pediatric intensive-care unit, because patients were more likely to receive intermittent intravenous therapy. Intermittent intravenous therapy or central venous catheter flushing practices may be important determinants of BSI risk

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 19 , Issue 10 , October 1998 , pp. 772 - 777
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1998

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. Benson, JS. FDA Safety Alert: Needlestick and Other Risks From Hypodermic Needles on Secondary I.V. Administration Sets—Piggyback and Intermittent I.V. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration; 1992. Letter to all US physicians.Google Scholar
2. Skolnick, R, LaRocca, J, Barba, D, Paicieus, L. Evaluation and implementation of a needleless intravenous system: making needlesticks a needless problem. Am J Infect Control 1993;21:39–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Ippolito, G, De Carli, G, Puro, V, Petrosillo, N, Arici, C, Bertucci, R, et al. Device specific risk of needlestick injury in Italian health care workers. JAMA 1994;272:607–610.Google Scholar
4. Danzig, LE, Short, LJ, Collins, K, Mahoney, M, Sepe, S, Bland, L, et al. Bloodstream infections associated with a needleless intravenous infusion system in patients receiving home infusion therapy. JAMA 1995;273:1862–1864.Google Scholar
5. Kellerman, S, Shay, DK, Howard, J, Goes, C, Feusner, J, Rosenberg, J, et al. Bloodstream infections in home infusion patients: the influence of race and needleless intravascular access devices. J Pediatr 1996;129:711–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Do, A, Banerjee, J, Ray, B, Barnett, B, Pham, M, Ball, L, et al. Evaluation of the role of needleless devices in bloodstream infection in home infusion therapy. Presented at the 36th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 09 17, 1996; New Orleans, LA. Abstract J61.Google Scholar
7. Garner, JS, Jarvis, WR, Emori, TG, Horan, TC, Hughes, JM. CDC definitions for nosocomial infections, 1988. Am J Infect Control 1988;16:128–140.Google Scholar
8. Pollack, MM, Ruttimann, UE, Getson, PR. Pediatric risk of mortality (PRISM) score. Crit Care Med 1988;16:1110–1116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Pearson, ML, the Hospital Infection Control Practice Advisory Committee. Guideline for prevention of intravascular device-related infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996;17:438–473.Google Scholar
10. Daumal, M, Daumal, F, Piot, C, Manoury, B, Colpart, E. One year survey of needleless intravenous access system in ICU. Presented at the 36th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 09 17, 1996; New Orleans, LA. Abstract J62.Google Scholar