Chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine for central venous catheter site care in children

The number of children receiving central venous catheters (CVCs) for the administration of medications is at an all-time high. Unfortunately, placement of these CVCs is not without risks. Infection of CVC insertion sites is one of the most common, yet often preventable, causes of nosocomial bacteremia in both children and adults worldwide. Throughout the years, multiple practice recommendations have been made regarding the proper site care of CVCs. The most popular antimicrobial solution used for site care has traditionally been povidone-iodine. Chlorhexidine gluconate solution, however, has been shown to be more effective than povidone-iodine in preventing CVC-related infections in adults. There continues to be controversy regarding the efficacy and safety of antimicrobial solutions for pediatric CVC site care. An evidence-based approach was used to determine current recommendations for CVC site care in children.     

Central venous catheter infection in adults in acute hospital settings

As well as the human cost, central venous catheter (CVC)-related bloodstream infections significantly inflate hospital costs, mainly through increased length of stay in hospital, particularly in intensive care. This literature review appraises recent research on measures used to minimize CVC-related infection and compares it with current best practice. Randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews published on the subject between 2000 and 2005 were reviewed, concentrating on non-tunnelled, short-term CVCs in the acute hospital setting. The new evidence mainly backs up current best practice. However, skin disinfection could be improved by using alcoholic chlorhexidine followed by aqueous povidone-iodine before CVC insertion. Also, alcoholic chlorhexidine is the preferred solution for cleaning the hubs/connectors before accessing the CVC. Good hand hygiene and quality control and education programmes are vital to improve patient care. More research is needed to clarify the effectiveness of certain interventions and technologies, such as antimicrobial CVCs.     

A survey of central venous catheter practices in Australian and New Zealand tertiary neonatal units

BackgroundInfection is the most common problem with central venous catheters (CVCs) in neonates. There are two published guidelines, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infection that describes evidence-based practice to reduce nosocomial infection.ObjectiveOur aims were to survey current medical and nursing management of central venous catheters in tertiary neonatal intensive care units in Australia and New Zealand and to compare with the CDC evidence-based practice guideline.MethodsA cross sectional survey was performed across 27 Australian and New Zealand neonatal units in September 2012. Two web-based questionnaires were distributed, one to medical directors related to the insertion of CVCs while CVC “maintenance” surveys were sent to nurse unit managers.ResultsSeventy percent (19/27) medical management and 59% (16/27) on nursing management surveys were completed. In all neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) there were guidelines for CVC maintenance and for 18 out of 19 there were guidelines for insertion. In the seven units using femoral lines, three had a guideline on insertion and four for maintenance. CVC insertion was restricted to credentialed staff in 57.9% of neonatal units. Only 26.5% used full maximal sterile barriers for insertion. Skin disinfection practices widely varied. Dressing use and dressing change regimens were standardised; all using a semi-permeable dressing. Duration of cleaning time of the access point varied significantly; however, the majority used a chlorhexidine with alcohol solution (68.8%). Line and fluid changes varied from daily to 96 h. The majority used sterile gloves and a sterile dressing pack to access the CVC (68.8%). In the majority of NICUs stopcocks were used (62.5%) with a needle-less access point attached (87.5%). In less than 50% of NICUs education was provided on insertion and maintenance.ConclusionThere is diversity of current practices and some aspects vary from the CDC guideline. There is a need to review NICU current practices to align with evidence based guidelines. The introduction of a common guideline may reduce variations in practice.     

Central venous catheter management in patients with cancer

This article provides a summary on the management of central venous catheters (CVCs) in the person with cancer. The use of CVCs is becoming more commonplace with the emphasis on home-based cancer therapies and the increasing use of high-dose chemotherapy regimens and stem cell rescue. The different types of CVC are examined and the potential complications and nursing management are discussed in this article. Nurses are leading practice in this area, undertaking a holistic assessment of the patient before inserting a CVC that meets their specific medical and personal requirements. A thorough understanding of the use of CVCs, potential complications and patient issues is crucial for sensitive assessment and treatment.     

Venous air embolism from central venous catheterization: a need for increased physician awareness.

OBJECTIVES: To report a series of patients with clinically diagnosed venous air embolism (VAE) and major sequelae as a complication of the use of central venous catheters (CVCs), to survey health care professionals' practices regarding CVCs, and to implement an educational intervention for optimizing approaches to CVC insertion and removal. SETTING: Tertiary care, university-based 806-bed medical center. INTERVENTIONS: We surveyed 140 physicians and 53 critical care nurses to appraise their awareness of the proper management and complications of CVCs. We then designed, delivered, and measured the effects of a multidisciplinary educational intervention given to 106 incoming house officers. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Although most physicians (127, 91%) chose the Trendelenburg position for CVC insertion, only 42 physicians (30%) reported concern for VAE. On CVC removal, only 36 physicians (26%) cited concern for VAE. Some physicians (13, 9%) reported elevating the head of the bed during CVC removal, possibly increasing the risk of VAE. Awareness of VAE or its prevention did not correlate with the level of physician training, experience, or specialty. After the educational intervention, concern for and awareness of proper methods of prevention of VAE improved (p < .001). At 6-month follow-up, reported use of the Trendelenburg position continued, but concern cited for VAE had returned to baseline. CONCLUSIONS: There is inadequate awareness of VAE as a complication of CVC use. Focused instruction can improve appreciation of this potentially fatal complication and knowledge of its prevention, but the effect declines rapidly. To achieve a more sustained improvement, a more intensive, hands-on, periodic educational program will likely be necessary, as well as reinforcement through enhanced supervision of CVC insertion and removal practices.     

Central venous catheter use

Central venous catheters (CVCs) are used with increasing frequency in the intensive care unit and in general medical wards. Catheter infection, the most frequent complication of CVC use, is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and duration of hospital stay. Risk factors in the development of catheter colonisation and bloodstream infection include patient factors (increased risk associated with malignancy, neutropenia, and shock) and treatment-related factors (increased risk associated with total parenteral nutrition, ICU admission for any reason, and endotracheal intubation). Other risk factors are prolonged catheter indwelling time, lack of asepsis during CVC insertion, and frequent manipulation of the catheter. The most important factor is catheter care after placement. Effects of CVC tunnelling on infection rates depend to a large extent on indwelling time and the quality of catheter care. Use of polyurethane dressings can increase the risk of colonisation compared to regular gauze dressing. Thrombus formation around the CVC tip increases the risk of infection; low-dose anticoagulants may decrease this risk. New developments such as CVC impregnation with antibiotics may reduce the risk of infection. Reducing catheter infection rates requires a multiple-strategy approach. Therefore, ICUs and other locations where CVCs are used should implement strict guidelines and protocols for catheter insertion, care, and maintenance.     

Infection control issues in central venous catheter care.

Central venous catheters (CVCs) are now a routine part of patient management in the intensive care unit (ICU). Over time, a vast amount of literature associated with the use and care of CVCs has accumulated. The purpose of this article is to discuss the literature associated with the care of these devices in a narrative format. Although particular attention is paid to infection control issues, other fundamental areas such as catheter design, dressings, line changing and post insertion management are also discussed. The article goes on to look at the future of CVC design and concludes with an analysis of future developments related to CVCs.     

Elective removal of cuffed central venous catheters in children

Background Subcutaneously tunneled, cuffed central venous catheters (CVCs) are commonly used in children undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy or hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. When their use is no longer indicated or precluded by mechanical or infectious complications, CVCs have to be removed. General instructions on how cuffed CVC should be removed are available in the medical texts but none is adapted for use in children. Materials and methods A literature search from the MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify articles describing the procedure of removing CVC or complications arising from the procedure was carried out. Results Specific guidance on the removal of CVC in children was not found. Venous air embolism appeared to be the most common complication associated with catheter removal but none involved pediatric patients. On the other hand, three out of the five incidents of catheter fracture with or without embolization happened in children. Conclusion Further studies are needed to define the optimal management of CVC removal in pediatric patients. A sequence of positioning the child, use of sedation, dissecting out the cuff, pulling off the catheter, closing the exit wound, and handling of the removed catheter is suggested.     

Colonization of central venous catheters

We studied etiologic factors important in colonization of 179 central venous catheters (CVCs) in patients randomized into group 1 (who received daily topical applications of povidone-iodine) or group 2 (who received only dry dressing changes). Colonization rates of CVC tips were similar between group 1 (18/84 or 21%) and group 2 (22/95 or 23%). Peripheral blood cultures grew Candida in eight hyperalimented patients (evenly divided between groups 1 and 2), S epidermidis in four other patients (also evenly divided), and gram-negative bacteria in three patients. Colonization rates for CVCs in place for 0 to seven days was 15.6% (17/109) and 76.7% (23/30) if used from eight to 30 days. Inflammatory signs at CVC sites were often absent when CVCs became colonized or produced bacteremia. Unimportant determinants of CVC colonization included skin securement of CVCs, antibiotic infusions through CVC lines, and masking and gowning of physicians before CVC placement. Daily applications of povidone-iodine did not reduce colonization of CVCs as compared to dry dressing changes.     

Urokinase for restoring patency of malfunctioning or blocked central venous catheters in children with hemato-oncological diseases

Goals of work To evaluate differences in success rate between two dosages of intraluminal urokinase (IL-UK) for treatment of withdraw occlusion in central venous catheters (CVC) and to confirm the efficacy of a salvage protocol with low-dose systemic urokinase (S-UK) in case of failure of IL-UK or of complete catheter obstruction.Patients and methods All malfunctioning or occluded partially implanted indwelling catheters inserted in a 29-month period in children with cancer at two tertiary care centers (Genoa and Turin) in Italy were eligible for this study. In cases of withdraw occlusion, IL-UK was used as first-line treatment with different schedules of administration in the two centers: a 5,000 IU/ml dose was used in Genoa and a 25,000 IU/ml dose in Turin (Protocol A). In case of failure of the front-line protocol or in case of complete CVC occlusion, S-UK at 1,000 IU/kg per hour for 3 h was used as a salvage protocol in both centers (Protocol B).Main results There were 81 episodes of malfunction and three of occlusion recorded in 68 CVCs. Protocol A was successful in 75 (92.5%) of the malfunction episodes. In particular, the dose of 5,000 IU of IL-UK was successful in 42 (89%) CVCs while the 25,000 IU dose resolved 33 (97%) of the episodes (not significant). The six patients with CVC refractory to IL-UK and the three subjects with complete CVC occlusion were treated with S-UK. Patency was obtained in seven cases (78%); the remaining two catheters had to be removed.Conclusions We found that 5,000 IU of IL-UK were as effective as 25,000 IU to resolve withdrawal occlusion in partially implanted CVCs and that systemic treatment with urokinase may rescue a significant proportion of CVCs refractory to IL-UK or that are apparently completely occluded.     

Strategic patient education program to prevent catheter-related bloodstream infection

Central venous catheters (CVCs) are used commonly for venous access during treatment, and catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) is a frequent, yet highly preventable, hospital-acquired infection. One of the performance elements of the Joint Commission's 2012 National Patient Safety Goals addresses the education of patients and family members on CVC care and management, as well as CRBSI prevention before a central catheter is inserted. This article presents the history and roles of the Infusion Therapy Team at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in CVC care and describes an organized patient education program that plays a key part in the institution's strategy to reduce and prevent CRBSI. Institutional standard policies and procedures for patient care should be in compliance with guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Joint Commission before any patient educational initiative is implemented. Such standards will serve as a guide to set up, organize, and implement an effective program.     

The safety of prolonging the use of central venous catheters: a prospective analysis of the effects of using antiseptic-bonded catheters with daily site care

OBJECTIVE: To determine rates of catheter colonization and catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) when antiseptic-bonded central venous catheters (CVCs) and standardized daily site care are used with no predetermined interval for removal. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: Two major trauma centers. PATIENTS: All trauma patients admitted to two major trauma centers that received a CVC from May 1996 through May 1998. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Catheters were semiquantitatively cultured to identify bacterial colonization and CRBSI. Monitored variables included total catheter days, anatomical site of catheter insertion, and area in hospital of catheter insertion. CVC tips and intracutaneous segments were semiquantitatively cultured. A total of 460 (92%) of 501 catheters placed in 324 trauma patients were evaluable, representing 95.5% of all catheter days during the study period. Rates of catheter colonization and CRBSI were 5% (5/1000 catheter days) and 1.5% (1.511000 catheter days), respectively. Subclavian catheters were in place longer than femoral or internal jugular catheters (p < .0001), but the colonization rate was significantly lower (p = .03; relative risk, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.77). No differences in CRBSI rates among anatomical sites or between catheters used < or =14 days and those used >14 days were identified. CONCLUSION: Femoral and internal jugular antiseptic-bonded CVCs develop bacterial colonization earlier than subclavian CVCs. Subclavian antiseptic-bonded CVCs combined with standardized daily site care may be safely used >14 days in trauma patients.     

Partial occlusion of indwelling central venous catheters

Partial occlusion of indwelling central venous catheters (CVCs) developed as a clinical problem following the trend to leave CVCs in place for the duration of intravenous therapy, which can last for more than 1 year in some cases. The primary manifestation of partial catheter occlusion is the ability to infuse but not aspirate fluids through an indwelling CVC. There is evidence that the problem is at least partially related to a residue of blood products deposited within some CVCs and implanted ports each time blood is aspirated or infused. Over time, these deposits may act as a ball valve when aspiration from the CVC is attempted while still allowing fluid or drug infusions. A preliminary investigation has indicated that this partial occlusion can be corrected by the use of a fibrinolytic drug to "cleanse" the CVC of residual blood products through lysis, thus restoring full CVC patency. Controlled studies are still needed to determine how often the CVC should be cleansed to prevent buildup of blood products in the indwelling CVC.     

52例化疗病人中心静脉导管感染初步调查

对需要化疗的肿瘤病人 ,行中心静脉导管 (CVC)置管并经此反复给药 ,是一种减轻病人痛苦、方便治疗的常用诊疗技术 ,但CVC感染往往伴有菌血症 ,时常因病情严重而治疗困难。 5 2例CVC置管化疗引起实际感染率为14 6 % ,其原因 :一是抗肿瘤药杀伤白细胞 ,使机体的免疫功能下降 ;二是置管时间较长 ,创口处理不当 ,细菌经导管漫延扩散而致菌血症 ;其三是晚期肿瘤病人长期卧床抗感染能力下降。因此 ,对CVC感染除针对性使用大剂量抗生素外 ,加强护理也是降低感染率的重要措施之一。护理内容包括 :(1)在化疗期间密切监测病人白细胞的变化 ,对白细胞显著下降者应使用升白细胞的药物 ;(2 )定期消毒处理创口周围皮肤和外露导管 ,更换覆盖无菌敷料 ,一般隔日 1次 ,天气炎热 ,每日 1次 ;(3)每日进行病室紫外线照射和空气消毒 ;(4 )协助病人多下床运动 ,以增强机体抗感染能力     

锁骨下静脉穿刺置中心静脉导管并发症的护理对策

经锁骨下静脉穿刺置中心静脉导管应用于患,长期间歇使用化疗药物或静脉高营养,给患带来了便利。但护理不恰当会引起并发症的出现,常见的并发症有导管破裂或脱出、管腔阻塞、误刺锁骨下动脉,此外气胸及感染威胁着患的生命,并发症的出现给护理也带来了障碍。做好中心静脉导管护理能安全保证患长期建立中心静脉通道,有助提高患生存质量。     

Brushing has made a sweeping change: use of the endoluminal FAS brush in haemodialysis central venous catheter management.

Common usage of central venous catheter (CVC) access for haemodialysis has presented the haemodialysis nurse with the challenge of maintaining CVCs as a viable form of access. The major complications seen with CVC use are obstruction and infection. A project was undertaken to identify the usefulness of the endoluminal fibrin analysis system (FAS) brush as an intervention in haemodialysis CVC management. The aims of the study were to identify: the reasons for brushing CVCs and the number of occasions brushing is indicated; how successful brushing is in unblocking and improving flow from CVCs, and the length of time the catheter remains patent following successful declotting. Seventeen patients were found suitable for CVC brushing and divided into two groups depending on the indication for brushing. In the group in which the catheter was brushed to restore flow, 73 per cent of brushings were successful, and in 50 per cent of those cases the CVC remained patent for 6 weeks. Sixty per cent of catheter brushings to improve flow were successful, and in 50 per cent of the CVCs flow was sustained over a 6-week period. Overall, the findings support the use of the endoluminal FAS brush for the applications trialled.     

Decrease in central venous catheter placement due to use of ultrasound guidance for peripheral intravenous catheters

Study Objectives

Obtaining intravenous (IV) access in the emergency department (ED) can be especially challenging, and physicians often resort to placement of central venous catheters (CVCs). Use of ultrasound-guided peripheral IV catheters (USGPIVs) can prevent many “unnecessary” CVCs, but the true impact of USGPIVs has never been quantified. This study set out to determine the reduction in CVCs by USGPIV placement.

Methods

This was a prospective, observational study conducted in 2 urban EDs. Patients who were to undergo placement of a CVC due to inability to establish IV access by other methods were enrolled. Ultrasound-trained physicians then attempted USGPIV placement. Patients were followed up for up to 7 days to assess for CVC placement and related complications.

Results

One hundred patients were enrolled and underwent USGPIV placement. Ultrasound-guided peripheral IV catheters were initially successfully placed in all patients but failed in 12 patients (12.0%; 95 confidence interval [CI], 7.0%-19.8%) before ED disposition, resulting in 4 central lines, 7 repeated USGPIVs, and 1 patient requiring no further intervention. Through the inpatient follow-up period, another 11 patients underwent CVC placement, resulting in a total of 15 CVCs (15.0%; 95 CI, 9.3%-23.3%) placed. Of the 15 patients who did receive a CVC, 1 patient developed a catheter-related infection, resulting in a 6.7% (95 CI, 1.2%-29.8%) complication rate.

Conclusion

Ultrasound prevented the need for CVC placement in 85% of patients with difficult IV access. This suggests that USGPIVs have the potential to reduce morbidity in this patient population.     

Peripherally inserted central catheters are equivalent to centrally inserted catheters in intensive care unit patients for central venous pressure monitoring

To determine the equivalency of pressure measurements from peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) versus centrally inserted central venous catheters (CVCs) in vitro as well as in vivo. The in vitro study was performed in a clinical laboratory. Static pressure measurements from PICCs and CVCs were obtained in vitro over a physiologic range of 5–25 mmHg. Triple and dual lumen PICCs were directly compared to CVC controls. Dynamic pressure waveforms were recorded to simulate physiologic intravascular pressure variation. The in vivo study was executed in the medical intensive care unit (MICU) of a tertiary-level academic medical center. Data was collected from ten adult patients with both a PICC and a CVC in place for on-going clinical care. Measurements of central venous pressure (CVP) were recorded simultaneously from PICCs and CVCs. Duplicate measurements were taken after a stable waveform was recorded. For the in vitro study, a total of 540 pressure measurements were recorded. The average bias determined by Bland–Altman plot was 0 mmHg for the 5Fr PICC and 0.071 mmHg for the 6Fr PICC. The correlation coefficient for both catheters was 1.0 (P < 0.001). Dynamic pressure waveforms revealed equivalent amplitude. During the in vivo trial, 70 CVP measurements were collected. The paired CVP measurements were found to be highly reliable across subjects (r = 0.99, P < 0.0001). No significance in the average difference in CVP measurement (PICC–CVC) was determined by the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test (S = 1, P = 0.93). In conclusion, PICCs are equivalent to CVCs when measuring static and dynamic pressure in vitro and CVP in ICU patients.