Central Venous Catheter Colonization in Critically Ill Patients: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study Comparing Standard with Two Antiseptic-Impregnated Catheters

In this prospective, randomized, controlled, unblinded study, we compared colonization rates of a standard, unimpregnated central venous catheter (CVC) with rates for silver-coated and chlorhexidine-silversulfadiazine (CH-SS)-impregnated CVC. Patient characteristics, CVC insertion site, indwelling t...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Anesthesia and analgesia 2005-12, Vol.101 (6), p.1778-1784
Hauptverfasser: Dünser, Martin W., Mayr, Andreas J., Hinterberger, Guido, Flörl, Cornelia Lass, Ulmer, Hanno, Schmid, Stefan, Friesenecker, Barbara, Lorenz, Ingo, Hasibeder, Walter R.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:In this prospective, randomized, controlled, unblinded study, we compared colonization rates of a standard, unimpregnated central venous catheter (CVC) with rates for silver-coated and chlorhexidine-silversulfadiazine (CH-SS)-impregnated CVC. Patient characteristics, CVC insertion site, indwelling time, and colonization detected by semiquantitative and quantitative microbiologic techniques were documented. Two-hundred-seventy-five critically ill patients were included into the study protocol. One-hundred-sixty standard, 160 silver (S)-coated, and 165 externally impregnated CH-SS CVC were inserted. There was a significant difference in CVC colonization rates among study groups (P = 0.029). There was no difference in the colonization rate and the colonization per 1000 catheter days between standard and S-coated (P = 0.564; P = 0.24) or CH-SS-coated CVC (P= 0.795; P = 0.639). When comparing antiseptic CVC with each other, colonization rates were significantly less with CH-SS-impregnated than with S-coated CVC (16.9% versus 7.3%; P = 0.01; 18.2 versus 7.5 of 1000 catheter days; P = 0.003; relative risk, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.21–0.85). Whereas standard and S-coated CVC were first colonized 2 and 3 days after insertion, respectively, CH-SS CVC were first colonized only after 7 days. In conclusion, antiseptic-impregnated CVC could not prevent catheter colonization when compared with standard polyurethane catheters in a critical care setting with infrequent catheter colonization rates and CVC left in place for >10 days.
ISSN:0003-2999
DOI:10.1213/01.ANE.0000184200.40689.EB