Search

Background The rate of bloodstream infections (BSIs) is disproportionately high in hemodialysis (HD) patients with central venous catheters (CVCs) versus those with permanent accesses, contributing to poorer outcomes, such as increased rates of death and hospitalizations. Study Design 12-month, prospective, cluster-randomized, multicenter, open-label trial. Setting & Participants 40 Fresenius Medical Care North America dialysis facilities were matched and paired by positive blood culture rate and number of patients with CVCs and then cluster-randomized with 20 in each study group. 2,470 patients participated in the study (1,245, intervention group; 1,225, control group), accruing approximately 350,000 CVC-days. Intervention Use of ClearGuard HD Antimicrobial Barrier Caps versus use of standard CVC caps; assigned at the facility level. Outcome Primary end point was positive blood culture rate as an indicator of BSI rate. Measurements Positive blood cultures, hospital admissions for BSI, hospitalization-days for BSI, intravenous antibiotic starts, and CVC-days. Results Baseline positive blood culture rates were similar ( P =0.8) between groups. Use of ClearGuard HD caps for 12 months was associated with a 56% lower BSI rate versus use of standard CVC caps (0.26 vs 0.59/1,000 CVC-days, respectively; P =0.01). When considering sustained use (defined as last 6 months of the study), the intervention versus the control was associated with a 69% lower BSI rate (0.22 vs 0.72/1,000 CVC-days, respectively; P =0.01), 43% fewer hospital admissions for BSI (0.28 vs 0.48/1,000 CVC-days, respectively; P =0.04), and 51% fewer hospitalization days for BSI (2.42 vs 4.94/1,000 CVC-days, respectively; P =0.04). No device-related adverse events were reported. Limitations Study was open label; patients occasionally received HD at nonresearch facilities; patients did not receive the intervention when hospitalized. Conclusions The findings show that use of ClearGuard HD Antimicrobial Barrier Caps, when compared with standard CVC caps, significantly lowers rates of catheter-related BSIs and hospital admissions for BSI in HD patients using CVCs.

Background Placement of central venous catheters (CVCs) is essential and routine practice in the management of children with congenital heart disease. The purpose of the present protocol is to evaluate the risk for infectious complications in terms of catheter colonization, catheter line–associated bloodstream infections, and catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs), and the mechanical complications from different central venous access sites in infants and newborns undergoing cardiac surgery. Methods One hundred sixty patients under 1 year of age and scheduled for cardiac surgery will be included in this randomized controlled trial (RCT); patients will be randomly allocated to the jugular or femoral vein arms. CVC insertion will be performed by one of three selected expert operators. Discussion The choice of the insertion site for central venous catheterization can influence the incidence and type of infectious complications in adults but this is not unanimously evidenced in the pediatric setting. The experimental hypothesis of this RCT is that the jugular insertion site is less likely to induce catheter colonization and CRBSI than the femoral site. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03282292. Registered on 12 September 2017. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2717-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction: catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI) are one of the most serious concerns in patients on home parenteral nutrition (HPN) which involve high morbidity and cost for the healthcare system. In the last years, taurolidine lock has proven to be beneficial in the prevention of CRBSI; however, the evidence of its efficiency is limited. Objective: to determine if taurolidine lock is a cost-effective intervention in patients on HPN. Materials and methods: retrospective study in patients on HPN with taurolidine lock. We compared the CRBSI rate and cost of its complications before and during taurolidine lock. Results: thirteen patients, six (46%) males and seven (54%) females, with a mean age of 61.08 (SD = 14.18) years received taurolidine lock. The total days of catheterization pre and per-taurolidine were 12,186 and 5,293, respectively. The underlying disease was benign in five patients (38.5%) and malignant in eight (61.5%). The CRBSI rate pre vs per-taurolidine was 3.12 vs 0.76 episodes per 1,000 catheter days (p = 0.0058). When the indication was a high CRBSI rate, this was 9.72 vs 0.39 (p < 0.001) in pre and per-taurolidine period respectively. No differences have been observed in the occlusion rates. None of the patients reported any adverse effects. The total cost of CRBSI in the pre-taurolidine period was 151,264.14 euros vs 24,331.19 euros in the per-taurolidine period. Conclusions: our study shows that taurolidine lock is a cost-effective intervention in patients on HPN with high risk of CRBSI.