Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T19:24:19.695Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Relationship Between Intravenous Fluid Contamination and the Frequency of Tubing Replacement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Adele Josephson ,
Myles E. Gombert ,
Marcelino F. Sierra ,
Lynne V. Karanfil  and
Gary F. Tansino
Adele Josephson*
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Infection Control, State University Hospital, and the Departments of Preventive Medicine, Medicine (Infectious Diseases Division) and Pathology, State University of New York College of Medicine, Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York
Myles E. Gombert
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Infection Control, State University Hospital, and the Departments of Preventive Medicine, Medicine (Infectious Diseases Division) and Pathology, State University of New York College of Medicine, Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York
Marcelino F. Sierra
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Infection Control, State University Hospital, and the Departments of Preventive Medicine, Medicine (Infectious Diseases Division) and Pathology, State University of New York College of Medicine, Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York
Lynne V. Karanfil
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Infection Control, State University Hospital, and the Departments of Preventive Medicine, Medicine (Infectious Diseases Division) and Pathology, State University of New York College of Medicine, Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York
Gary F. Tansino
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Infection Control, State University Hospital, and the Departments of Preventive Medicine, Medicine (Infectious Diseases Division) and Pathology, State University of New York College of Medicine, Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York
*
Hospital Epidemiologist, Downstate Medical Center, 450 Clarkson Avenue, Box 23 Brooklyn, NY 11203
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Medical patients receiving IV therapy were randomly assigned to one of two IV tubing change groups. One group had a 48-hour tubing change and the other had no tubing change for the remainder of the cannula placement. A daily IV fluid specimen was processed microbiologically. To complete the study, a minimum of 3 continuous days of therapy and three fluid specimens was required. There were two contaminated specimens, one in each tubing change group. The contamination rate in the 48-hour change group was 0.87% and 0.96% in the no change group. The rate difference of 0.09% has a 95% confidence interval (−0.035 to +0.036) which includes zero. Survival analysis also revealed no significant difference in the cumulative probability of survival, however the mean duration of continuous tubing use of 4.3 days in the no change group and 1.8 days in the 48 hour change group were significantly different (p<0.05). The cumulative probability of surviving contamination free was 0.988 in the 48-hour group and 0.987 in the no-change group. We conclude that it is safe to change IV tubing at intervals up to but not exceeding 4 days.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 6 , Issue 9 , September 1985 , pp. 367 - 370
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1985

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.Guideline for prevention of intravenous therapy-related infections. US Department of Health and Human Services; (PHS). Atlanta, Centers for Disease Control, 1982.Google Scholar
2.Maki, DC: Epidemic nosocomial bacteremias, in Wenzel, RP (ed): Handbook of Hospital Acquired Infections. Boca Raton, CRC Press Inc, 1981, pp 371–512.Google Scholar
3.Goldmann, DA, Maki, DC, Bennett, JV: Intravenous infusion associated infections, in Bennett, JV, Brachman, PS (eds): Hospital Infections. Boston, Little Brown and Co. 1979, pp 443–452.Google Scholar
4.Maki, DG, Rhame, FS, Mackel, DC, et al: Nationwide epidemic of septicemia caused by contaminated intravenous products, 1. Epidemiologic and clinical features. Am J Med 1976;60:471–485.Google Scholar
5.Buxton, AE, Highsmith, AK, Garner, JS, et al: Contamination of intravenous infusion fluid: Effects of changing administration sets. Ann Intern Med 1979;90:764–768.Google Scholar
6.Band, JD, Maki, DG: Safety of changing intravenous delivery systems at longer than 24 hour intervals. Ann Intern Med 1979;90:173–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Simmons, BP, Stover, BH, Rhame, FS: The CDC intravenous guidelines: Comment and clarification. Conversations in Infection Control 1982;3:9.Google Scholar
8.Balows, A, Lennette, DJ, Truant, JP: Manual of Clinical Microbiology, ed 3. Washington, American Society for Microbiology, 1980.Google Scholar
9.Maki, DG, Weise, CE, Sarafin, HW: A semiquantitative culture method for identifying intravenous-catheter-related infection. N Engl J Med 1977;296:1305–1309.Google Scholar
10.SPSSX Users Guide, Chapter 40, Survival, New York, McGraw Hill Book Company 1983, p 735.Google Scholar
11.Fleiss, J: Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, ed 2. New York, John Wiley and Sons Inc. 1981, p 41.Google Scholar
12.Iliff, RD: The significance of statistical significance. N Engl J Med 1983; March 10, p 596.Google Scholar
13.Berg, AO: Some non-random views of statistical significance. J Fam Pract 1979;8:1011–1014.Google Scholar