Major Article
Are antiseptic-coated central venous catheters effective in a real-world setting?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2005.08.004Get rights and content

Background

Catheter-related bloodstream infections are common, costly, and morbid. Randomized controlled trials indicate that antiseptic-coated central venous catheters reduce infection rates.

Objective

To assess the clinical and economic effectiveness of antiseptic-coated catheters for critically ill patients in a real-world setting.

Methods

Central venous catheters coated with chlorhexidine/silver-sulfadiazene were introduced in all patients requiring central venous access in adult intensive care units at the University of Michigan Health System, a large, tertiary care teaching hospital. A pretest-posttest cohort design measured the primary outcome of catheter-related bloodstream infection rate, comparing the 2 years prior to the intervention with the 2 years following the intervention. We also evaluated cost-effectiveness and changes in vancomycin use.

Results

The intervention was associated with a 4% per month relative reduction in the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infection, after controlling for the effects of time. Overall, a 35% relative risk reduction (P < .0003) in the catheter-related bloodstream infection rate occurred in the posttest phase. The use of antiseptic-coated catheters reduced costs more than $100,000 annually. Vancomycin use was less in units in which antiseptic catheters were used compared with wards in which these catheters were not used.

Conclusion

Antiseptic-coated catheters appear to be clinically effective and economically efficient in a real-world setting.

Section snippets

Methods

We conducted a prospectively designed before-and-after cohort study, collecting data 2 years before and 2 years after an intervention that involved using catheters coated with chlorhexidine/silver-sulfadiazene in the 6 adult intensive care units at the University of Michigan Health System, a large tertiary care center. Pediatric units were excluded. During catheter insertion, povidone-iodine was used for site disinfection throughout the study, and hospital guidelines recommended the use of

Results

We found both statistically and clinically significant decreases in CRBSI rates. Using a paired t test, we found that the CRBSI rate prior to the intervention was fairly stable at 8.2 infections per 1000 catheter days. The CRBSI rate after the intervention was 5.4 infections per 1000 catheter days, which represented a 35% relative risk reduction (P = .0003).

Fig 1 shows a graph of monthly rates of CRBSI for all adult intensive care units, with separate regression lines added to show trends for

Discussion

Our before-and-after intervention revealed that antiseptic-coated catheters appeared to enhance patient safety and decrease health care costs under a variety of assumptions in a real-world setting. The 35% relative risk reduction in CRBSI that we found was similar to the 40% reduction found in efficacy studies.16 Poisson results, adjusting for confounding effects of time and other external changes, show a decrease in CRBSI of 4% per month.

Vancomycin-resistant enterococcal bacteremia is

References (36)

  • J. Rello et al.

    Evaluation of outcome of intravenous catheter-related infections in critically ill patients

    Am J Respir Crit Care Med

    (2000)
  • J.B. Dimick et al.

    Increased resource use associated with catheter-related bloodstream infection in the surgical intensive care unit

    Arch Surg

    (2001)
  • D.L. Veenstra et al.

    Cost-effectiveness of antiseptic-impregnated central venous catheters for the prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infection

    JAMA

    (1999)
  • S. Eyer et al.

    Catheter-related sepsis: prospective, randomized study of three methods of long-term catheter maintenance

    Crit Care Med

    (1990)
  • D.K. Cobb et al.

    A controlled trial of scheduled replacement of central venous and pulmonary-artery catheters

    N Engl J Med

    (1992)
  • B. Nystrom

    Impact of handwashing on mortality in intensive care: examination of the evidence

    Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol

    (1994)
  • B.N. Doebbeling et al.

    Comparative efficacy of alternative hand-washing agents in reducing nosocomial infections in intensive care units

    N Engl J Med

    (1992)
  • O. Mimoz et al.

    Prospective, randomized trial of two antiseptic solutions for prevention of central venous or arterial catheter colonization and infection in intensive care unit patients

    Crit Care Med

    (1996)
  • Cited by (29)

    • Silver in medicine: A brief history BC 335 to present

      2014, Burns
      Citation Excerpt :

      Borschel et al. evaluated central venous catheters coated with CHG/SSD in a pretest–posttest cohort study at the University of Michigan [54]. A 35% relative risk reduction in the catheter-related bloodstream infection rate was seen after introduction of the coated catheters, with an associated cost reduction of $100,000 annually [54]. Antibiotic-coated central venous catheter use was also associated with a 22% reduction in the use of vancomycin, presumably prescribed for Gram positive bloodstream infections [54].

    • Bacterial adhesion: From mechanism to control

      2010, Biochemical Engineering Journal
    • Parenteral nutrition - Guidelines of the Israeli Society for Clinical Nutrition (ISCN)

      2009, e-SPEN
      Citation Excerpt :

      There is a theoretical concern of development of vancomycin-resistant organisms; therefore, vancomycin locks are usually used in units where there are high infection rates or in a patient who is prone to develop CRI (GCPN 4C, CDC 1B). Anti-infective coated catheters have been tried with various results79 (GCPN 1A, CDC 1A). The use of anti-infective coated catheter should be considered if there is a high rate of CRI (GCPN 4C; 1B).

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Supported, in part, by a Patient Safety Fellowship award provided by C. R. Bard and the Research Foundation for the Prevention of Complications Associated with Health Care and the VA/UM Patient Safety Enhancement Program and by a Career Development Award from the Health Services Research & Development Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs and a Patient Safety Developmental Center Grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (P20-HS11540, to S.S.).

    View full text