Clinical review: new technologies for prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections

Intravascular catheters have become essential devices for the management of critically and chronically ill patients. However, their use is often associated with serious infectious complications, mostly catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), resulting in significant morbidity, increased duration of hospitalization, and additional medical costs. The majority of CRBSIs are associated with central venous catheters (CVCs), and the relative risk for CRBSI is significantly greater with CVCs than with peripheral venous catheters. However, most CVC-related infections are preventable, and different measures have been implemented to reduce the risk for CRBSI, including maximal barrier precautions during catheter insertion, catheter site maintenance, and hub handling. The focus of the present review is on new technologies for preventing infections that are directed at CVCs. New preventive strategies that have been shown to be effective in reducing risk for CRBSI, including the use of catheters and dressings impregnated with antiseptics or antibiotics, the use of new hub models, and the use of antibiotic lock solutions, are briefly described.     

Clinical review: New technologies for prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections

Intravascular catheters have become essential devices for the management of critically and chronically ill patients. However, their use is often associated with serious infectious complications, mostly catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), resulting in significant morbidity, increased duration of hospitalization, and additional medical costs. The majority of CRBSIs are associated with central venous catheters (CVCs), and the relative risk for CRBSI is significantly greater with CVCs than with peripheral venous catheters. However, most CVC-related infections are preventable, and different measures have been implemented to reduce the risk for CRBSI, including maximal barrier precautions during catheter insertion, catheter site maintenance, and hub handling. The focus of the present review is on new technologies for preventing infections that are directed at CVCs. New preventive strategies that have been shown to be effective in reducing risk for CRBSI, including the use of catheters and dressings impregnated with antiseptics or antibiotics, the use of new hub models, and the use of antibiotic lock solutions, are briefly described.     

Incidence of infection related to arterial catheterization in children: a prospective study

The incidence of infection related to arterial catheterization has not been studied in critically ill children, using systematic catheter cultures. We studied prospectively 68 children in whom 70 arterial catheters were inserted. After the aseptic catheterization procedure, no component of the system was changed. The insertion site was inspected daily for signs of inflammation. Upon removal, catheters were cultured using a semiquantitative method. Blood and infusion fluid specimens were also cultured if septicemia was clinically suspected. Mean duration of catheterization was 59 +/- 6 (SE) h. In our series, all catheter and infusion fluid cultures were negative. Local inflammation was not predictive of catheter tip infection and correlated poorly with duration of catheterization (r = 0.2). In our experience, the incidence of infection related to arterial catheterization is low. Routine change of infusion fluid, tubing, dressing and insertion site as well as systematic catheter culture in the absence of fever appears unwarranted.     

Pulmonary artery catheterization: a prospective study of internal jugular and subclavian approaches

We compared complications of pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) insertion and maintenance at internal jugular (IJ) vs. subclavian (SC) sites. Patients were randomized into groups using an IJ or SC route, and insertions were timed. An air-permeable dressing and anticontamination shield were used. Catheters were removed 72 h after insertion. If PAC monitoring was still needed, a new catheter was either inserted over a guidewire at the initial insertion site or inserted at a new site. On removal, the catheter tip, introducer-sheath tip, and catheter within the shield were submitted for semiquantitative culture. Sixty-six catheters were initially inserted, and 26 were changed. No determinative differences in the time for venous cannulation were found, but the IJ route was slightly faster. In 3% of the catheterizations, serious complications arose. The infection rate was 2% for initial catheters, 8% for second catheters placed over a guidewire, and 15% for second catheters placed at a new site. These differences were not consequential. No local infection or catheter-related sepsis occurred. Thus, using a standard, sterile-insertion technique and a catheter-maintenance protocol yielded a low risk of insertion and infectious complications at either the IJ or SC site. Our data indicated that PACs can be changed safely over a guidewire at 72 h, avoiding further insertion risks without increasing infectious complications.     

3M透明敷贴对外周穿刺中心静脉置管术后并发症的影响

目的 探讨不同种敷贴对外周穿刺中心静脉置管术后并发症的影响.方法 PICC置管术后对3M透明局部皮肤过敏者的患者分别采用4层尤菌纱布敷料或安舒妥IV3000潮气感应透明薄膜敷贴进行局部换药,比较导管感染、导管脱出与并发症的发生率.结果 采用4层无菌纱布敷料进行局部换药.发生导管感染10例占19.4%.导管部分脱出7例占6.5%.采用安舒妥IV3000潮气感应透明薄膜敷贴局部换药出现导管感染1例占3.2%,1例导管脱出占3.2%.结论 采用安舒妥IV3000潮气感应透明薄膜敷贴局部换药,它的优越性解决了普通透明敷贴、无菌纱布敷料上的不足.减少了PICC置管术后并发症的发生,延长了导管使用时间.     

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 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.     

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.     

Chlorhexidine-impregnated gel dressing compared with transparent polyurethane dressing in the prevention of catheter-related infections in critically ill adult patients: A pilot randomised controlled trial

BackgroundIn patients with short-term percutaneous central venous catheter (CVC), it is recommended that a dressing be applied to the catheter insertion site to prevent catheter-related infections.ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial to compare the efficacy of chlorhexidine-impregnated dressing with that of polyurethane dressing in the prevention of catheter-related infections in critically ill adult patients with short-term percutaneous CVC.MethodsOne hundred fifteen patients with a CVC were randomised to chlorhexidine-impregnated gel dressing (chlorhexidine gel group) or transparent polyurethane dressing (polyurethane group) between April and December 2014. Feasibility outcomes included data on eligibility, recruitment, missing data, and protocol violation. The primary outcome measure of efficacy was the presence of colonisation with the same microorganism in both the skin swab around catheter insertion site and the catheter tip.ResultsOf 526 patients assessed for eligibility, 411 (78%) did not meet inclusion criteria, and 115 (22%) were randomised. Among participants of both groups, there were 14 missing primary outcomes of which 10 were due to failure to collect the catheter tip (a protocol violation). The final sample had 47 and 54 individuals in the chlorhexidine and polyurethane groups, respectively. Skin and catheter tip were colonised by the same microorganism for 13% of the participants in the chlorhexidine group and 8% in the polyurethane group, although the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.51). There were no differences between the two groups for catheter tip colonisation, skin site colonisation, catheter insertion site infection, catheter-related bloodstream infection, skin irritation, and the number of unplanned dressing changes.ConclusionsOur preliminary results found that a large randomised controlled trial would be feasible. This study provides valuable information that can be used to design more robust studies to prevent infection among patients with short-term percutaneous CVC when using either chlorhexidine or polyurethane dressing.     

更换敷料不同频率对新生儿PICC导管穿刺口感染的影响

目的 探讨敷料不同更换频率对新生儿PICC导管穿刺口感染情况的影响,为选定适合新生儿的敷料更换频率提供理论依据.方法 对95例实施PICC的新生儿进行前瞻性研究,随机分为3组,分别每3,5,7 d更换敷料,观察穿刺口感染情况并进行病原学检测,同时观察与敷料更换有关的并发症发生情况.结果 每3d更换敷料组患儿31例,发生穿刺口感染3例占9.68%,每5 d更换敷料组患儿34例,发生穿刺口感染2例占5.88%,每7 d更换敷料组患儿30例,发生穿刺口感染5例占16.67%,3组穿刺口感染率比较无显著差异.10例穿刺口感染患儿的病原学检测8例阳性,阳性率80%,均为表皮葡萄球菌,其中2例为耐甲氧西林表皮葡萄球菌.每3 d更换敷料组患儿中4例出现表皮撕脱,每5,7 d更换敷料组患儿未出现表皮撕脱.结论 建议新生儿PICC导管每7 d更换敷料1次,敷料潮湿、松动时及时更换.     

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

We studied the infectious risk of different methods of managing vascular catheters during long-term use. Consecutive surgical ICU patients requiring triple lumen catheters, pulmonary artery catheters, or arterial catheters for greater than 7 days were prospectively randomized to one of three management groups: a) percutaneous (PERC) puncture with every 7-day catheter change at a new site, b) no weekly change (NWC) with a new site when changed, or c) guidewire exchange (GWX) with every 7-day catheter change at the same site. In all groups, a catheter change was mandatory for a positive blood culture, skin site infection, or sepsis without a likely source. Cultures were obtained when clinically indicated and at the time of every catheter change. Catheter-related sepsis (CRS) was defined as a positive blood culture and catheter culture with the same organism. A total of 112 patients met evaluation criteria. There were no intergroup differences in age, primary diagnosis, severity of injury or illness, number of study days, number of protocol violations, route of catheterization, number of catheters present/patient day, catheter sepsis rate, or bacteremia rate. The NWC group demonstrated an increased number of days/catheter, fewer catheter/subcutaneous tract segment cultures/patient, and a reduced incidence of catheter tip colonization. These results occurred in a setting where the number of CRS episodes/patient was 0.17 for GWX, 0.22 for PERC, and 0.16 for NWC. We conclude that there is no difference in infectious risk between these three methods of long-term catheter management. The method with the least complications and expense should be used.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

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.     

Polyhexamethylene biguanide discs versus unmedicated dressings for prevention of central venous catheter–associated infection in the intensive care unit: A pilot randomised controlled trial to assess protocol safety and feasibility

BackgroundCentral venous catheters are prone to infectious complications, affecting morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Polyhexamethylene biguanide-impregnated discs at the catheter insertion site may prevent local and bloodstream infection; however, efficacy has not been established in a critical care setting.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to pilot test polyhexamethylene biguanide–impregnated discs compared to standard unmedicated dressings for central venous catheter infection prevention in critically ill patients.MethodsThis was a single-centre pilot randomised controlled trial. Adults admitted to intensive care requiring a central venous catheter for >72 h were eligible. Patients with a current bloodstream infection, concurrent central venous catheter, chlorhexidine or polyhexamethylene biguanide allergy, or sensitive skin were excluded. Patients were randomised to receive standard central venous catheter dressings with/without polyhexamethylene biguanide discs.Outcome measuresThe primary outcome was feasibility, defined by patient eligibility, recruitment, retention, protocol adherence, missing data, and staff satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included: central line–associated infection; primary bloodstream infection; local infection; skin complications; device/dressing dwell time; serious adverse events, and cost-effectiveness.ResultsOf 309 patients screened, 80 participants were recruited with 98% (n = 78) receiving an internal jugular catheter which dwelled for a median of 5 days (interquartile range = 4.0, 6.0). Feasibility criteria were predominantly met (recruitment 88%; retention 100%; protocol fidelity 91%); however, eligibility criteria were not met (32%; most commonly owing to short predicted catheter dwell). Staff acceptability criteria were met, with 83% of staff scoring dressing application and removal ≥7 on a numerical rating scale. There were no central line–associated bloodstream infections and no local infections. Insertion site itch occurred in 4% (control [n = 0], intervention [n = 3]) of participants, while 32% (24/76) reported pain, and 46% (35/76) tenderness.ConclusionsPolyhexamethylene biguanide discs appear safe for central venous catheter infection prevention. Feasibility of a large efficacy trial was established with some modifications to screening processes. Large, adequately powered randomised controlled trials are needed to test the infection prevention hypotheses.     

Influence of insertion site on central venous catheter colonization and bloodstream infection rates

OBJECTIVE: To compare colonization and catheter-related bloodstream infection (CR-BSI) rates among three insertion sites (subclavian, internal jugular, femoral) used for central venous catheter (CVC) placement. DESIGN: Twenty-four-month prospective study, with relative effects analyzed by Cox proportional hazards regression. SETTING: Eight-bed intensive care unit. PATIENTS: Four hundred and ten critically ill patients requiring CVC placement. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: All short-term multi-lumen CVCs, including antimicrobial-coated devices, were studied with management standardized. Six hundred and five CVCs (4,040 catheter days) were analyzed. Colonization and CR-BSI incidence were, respectively, 15.1 (95% CI 13.5-21.0) and 1.8 (95% CI 1.2-4.2) per 1,000 catheter-days. Colonization was higher at the internal jugular (HR 3.64; 95% CI 1.32-10.00; p=0.01) and femoral (HR 5.15; 95% CI 1.82-14.51; p=0.004) sites than at the subclavian site. The femoral site carried a greater risk of being colonized by non-S. epidermidis species than the subclavian and internal jugular sites combined (HR 4.15; 95% CI 1.79-9.61; p=0.001). CVCs inserted in the Department of Emergency Medicine were more colonized than those inserted in the ICU or operating room (HR 2.66; 95% CI 1.27-5.56; p=0.01), and CVCs were less colonized in females than in males (HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.26-0.89; p=0.02). No difference in CR-BSI rates was noted between the three sites. CONCLUSIONS: Colonization was lowest at the subclavian site. Regional differences exist with respect to type of pathogen isolated. Colonization was influenced by insertion location and gender. The incidence of CR-BSI was not different.     

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     

Inflammation at the insertion site is not predictive of catheter-related bloodstream infection with short-term,noncuffed central venous catheters

BACKGROUND: Noncuffed, percutaneously inserted central venous catheters (CVCs) are widely used and cause at least 250,000 bloodstream infections (BSIs) in U.S. hospitals each year. We report a prospective study to determine whether inflammation at the insertion site is predictive of CVC-related BSI. METHODS: Percutaneously inserted, noncuffed CVCs inserted into the subclavian, internal jugular, or femoral vein in two randomized trials during 1998-2000 were prospectively studied; most patients were in an intensive care unit. The condition of the insertion site was evaluated daily by research nurses, quantifying pain (0, 1), erythema (0-2), swelling (0, 1), and purulence (0, 1); the lowest possible overall inflammation score was 0 and the highest was 5. CVC-related BSI was confirmed in each case by demonstrating concordance between isolates from the catheter segment and from blood cultures by restriction-fragment DNA subtyping. RESULTS: Among 1,263 CVCs prospectively studied, 333 (26.3%) were colonized at removal; of these, 35 catheters (2.7%) caused BSIs (5.9 per 1000 CVC days). BSIs were caused by coagulase-negative staphylococci (n = 27), enterococci (n = 4), enteric Gram-negative bacilli (n = 3), or (n = 1). Most insertion sites showed little or no inflammation at the time of removal. There were no significant differences among mean scores for each inflammatory variable examined or overall score among colonized CVCs (0.1 +/- 0.1), catheters causing CVC-related BSI (0.2 +/- 0.4), and noncolonized CVCs (0.1 +/- 0.1). The sensitivity of local inflammation for diagnosis of CVC-related BSI was dismal (0-3%). CONCLUSION: Local inflammation is uncommon with infected CVCs, probably because most catheter-associated infections are currently caused by coagulase-negative staphylococci, a pathogen that incites little local or systemic inflammation. Whereas overt inflammation of the insertion site should raise suspicion of CVC-related BSI caused by or Gram-negative bacilli, especially if the patient has fever or other signs of sepsis, in general, site appearance cannot be relied on to identify catheter colonization or CVC-related BSI.     

The incidence of infectious complications of central venous catheters at the subclavian, internal jugular, and femoral sites in an intensive care unit population

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to assess the risk of central venous catheter infection with respect to the site of insertion in an intensive care unit population. The subclavian, internal jugular, and femoral sites were studied. DESIGN: An epidemiologic, prospective, observational study. SETTING: The setting is a well-functioning intensive care unit under a unified critical care medicine division in a university teaching hospital. Critical care medicine attendings and fellows covered on site 17 and 24 hrs per day, respectively. PATIENTS: Patients were critically ill. All patients were triaged into the intensive care unit by on-site critical care medicine fellows. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In an intensive care unit population, we prospectively studied the incidence of central venous catheter infection and colonization at the subclavian, internal jugular, and femoral sites. The optimal insertion site for each individual patient was selected by experienced intensive care physicians (critical care medicine attendings and fellows). All of the operators were proficient in inserting catheters at all three sites. Confounding factors were eliminated; there were a limited number of experienced operators inserting the catheters, a uniform protocol stressing strict sterile insertion was enforced, and standardized continuous catheter care was provided by dedicated intensive care nurses proficient in all aspects of central venous catheter care.Two groups of patients were analyzed. Group 1 was patients with one catheter at one site, and group 2 was patients with catheters at multiple sites. Group 1 was the primary analysis, whereas group 2 was supporting.A total of 831 central venous catheters and 4,735 catheter days in 657 patients were studied. The incidence of catheter infection (4.01/1,000 catheter days, 2.29% catheters) and colonization (5.07/1,000 catheter days, 2.89% catheters) was low overall.In group 1, the incidence of infection was subclavian: 0.881 infections/1,000 catheter days (0.45%), internal jugular: 0/1,000 (0%), and femoral: 2.98/1,000 (1.44%; p = .2635). The incidence of colonization was subclavian: 0.881 colonization/1,000 catheter days (0.45%), internal jugular: 2.00/1,000 (1.05%), and femoral: 5.96/1,000 (2.88%, p = .1338). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of infection and colonization or duration of catheters (p = .8907) among the insertion sites.In group 2, there was also no statistically significant difference in the incidence of infection and colonization among the three insertion sites. CONCLUSION: In an intensive care unit population, the incidence of central venous catheter infection and colonization is low overall and, clinically and statistically, is not different at all three sites when optimal insertion sites are selected, experienced operators insert the catheters, strict sterile technique is present, and trained intensive care unit nursing staff perform catheter care.     

Anesthesia (11)

Epidural catheter tip cultures: results of a 4‐year audit and implications for clinical practice. (Royal Adelaide Hospital and University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia) Reg Anesth Pain Med 2000;25:360–367. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical relevance of routine microbiological culture of epidural catheter tips after use in acute pain management, and to identify patterns of culture result with respect to both indications for, and duration of, epidural catheterization. Over a 4‐year period, when acute pain service (APS) protocol required epidural catheter tips to be sent for microbiological culture on removal, APS saw 1,810 patients who had received epidural analgesia. The records of the patients were reviewed. Culture results were available for 1,443 (79.7%) patients: 1,027 catheter tips (71.2%) were sterile, while 416 (28.8%) were positive for at least 1 type of microorganism. Clinically, no epidural space infections were identified. The highest positive culture rates were found from epidural catheters used in treatment of pain from fractured ribs or fractured pelves. The lowest incidences occurred in elective orthopedic and thoracic surgery. The proportion of epidural catheters with positive culture results steadily increased with the duration of catheterization, but there were no clinically significant differences for catheters left in situ for either 3 or 4 days. Conclude that a significant proportion of epidural catheter tips may be “culture positive” after removal. It is suggested that this probably represents colonization of the skin at the catheter insertion site and subsequent contamination of the catheter tip on removal of the catheter. The large number of “culture positive” tips in the absence of clinically identifiable epidural space infection suggests that routine culture of epidural catheter tips is clinically irrelevant in the vast majority of cases, and that it is not a good predictor of the presence of an epidural space infection. Comment by Alan David Kaye, MD, PhD. Clinically relevant epidural catheter‐induced infection is quite rare with the largest study on this topic revealing 1/505,000 catheter placements. This retrospective study involved the insertion of 1810 epidural catheters. At the time of insertion, full aseptic precautions were employed. When the catheters were removed, they were cultured and it was revealed that 28.8% were positive for at least 1 organism. This prevalence is relatively consistent with other published studies. The most common organism found was coagulase negative staphylococcus. Interestingly, not one of these patients developed an epidural abscess. The authors speculate that the relatively common prevalence of organism positive cultures was related to poor sterile technique at the catheter insertion site at the time of placement and/or removal. The authors conclude that epidural catheter contamination in the vast majority of cases is clinically irrelevant. In as much as epidural abscess can have vital clinical implications, it behooves the practitioner to adhere to strict sterile techniques even though the likelihood of infection is extremely low. Certainly, this study reinforces the fact that routine culture of epidural catheter tips is not a good predicator of epidural space infection.