Stopcock lumen contamination does not reflect the full burden of bacterial intravenous tubing contamination: Analysis using a novel injection port

Background Prior clinical studies have used injection port lumen culture as a marker of intravenous (IV) fluid system contamination. We hypothesized that culturing injected saline (effluent) is a more sensitive method of detecting IV fluid system bacterial contamination than lumen culture. To test t...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:American journal of infection control 2010-11, Vol.38 (9), p.734-739
Hauptverfasser: Muffly, Matthew K., MD, Beach, Michael L., MD, PhD, Isaac Tong, Yi Cai, Yeager, Mark P., MD
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 739
container_issue 9
container_start_page 734
container_title American journal of infection control
container_volume 38
creator Muffly, Matthew K., MD
Beach, Michael L., MD, PhD
Isaac Tong, Yi Cai
Yeager, Mark P., MD
description Background Prior clinical studies have used injection port lumen culture as a marker of intravenous (IV) fluid system contamination. We hypothesized that culturing injected saline (effluent) is a more sensitive method of detecting IV fluid system bacterial contamination than lumen culture. To test this hypothesis, we compared the incidence of lumen contamination with effluent contamination in a simulated setting. We also measured the effect of a novel injection port protective device (Port Guide; Matrix Tooling, Inc, Wood Dale, IL) on contamination. Methods In this ex vivo study, 33 providers performed 5 injections of 1 mL sterile saline into each of 4 injection port designs: (1) stopcock, (2) stopcock with Port Guide, (3) stopcock with disinfectable needleless closed connector (DNCC), and (4) stopcock with DNCC and Port Guide. The primary outcome was the rate of effluent contamination with simultaneously contaminated injection port lumen. Results Bacterial organisms were recovered from the effluent in 17 of the 132 injection ports evaluated. Of those 17 injection ports with contaminated effluent, 4 injection port lumens were simultaneously contaminated (24%). Additionally, use of the stopcock with Port Guide significantly reduced effluent contamination. Conclusion Effluent culture is a more sensitive marker of IV fluid system contamination than injection port lumen culture. A novel protective device on the stopcock (Port Guide) significantly reduced IV fluid system bacterial contamination.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.ajic.2010.03.014
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_762020107</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0196655310005377</els_id><sourcerecordid>762020107</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c467t-893f612e6d70fe1bd292721328ca204344a6933daa9ae3bf5558bc32934cc203</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9ks2KFDEUhYMoTk_rC7iQIMisqs1PVVIlgzAM_sGAi5l9SKVuaWrSSZukGvo1fGJTdDviLFwFku-em3vORegVJRtKqHg3bfRkzYaRckH4htD6CVrRhsmKs048RStCO1GJpuFn6DyliRDScdE8R2eMCE4EbVfo120OOxPMPXbzFjw2wWe9tV5nGzweAiTsQ8YRRgcm4_wD8Dg7h_s5DgUPI-61yRCtdtj6HPUefJgTznNv_fd_5d7jK6_dIdmE57S86qK9h6VwKuJLw12I-QV6NmqX4OXpXKO7Tx_vrr9UN98-f72-uqlMLWSu2o6PgjIQgyQj0H5gHZOMctYazUjN61qLjvNB604D78emadreFGd4bQwjfI0ujrK7GH7OkLLa2mTAOe2hTKCkYGSxVhbyzSNyCnMsoyTVEtnxrint1ogdIRNDSsUvtYt2q-NBUaKWuNSklrjUoqkIVyWuUvT6pDz3WxgeSv7kU4C3J0Ano90YtTc2_eV4Q1omeeEujxwUw_YWokrGgjcw2FisVUOw___Hh0flxllvS8d7OEB6GJeqxBRRt8tiLXtFy0o1XEr-G0FIyes</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>807939504</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Stopcock lumen contamination does not reflect the full burden of bacterial intravenous tubing contamination: Analysis using a novel injection port</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Muffly, Matthew K., MD ; Beach, Michael L., MD, PhD ; Isaac Tong, Yi Cai ; Yeager, Mark P., MD</creator><creatorcontrib>Muffly, Matthew K., MD ; Beach, Michael L., MD, PhD ; Isaac Tong, Yi Cai ; Yeager, Mark P., MD</creatorcontrib><description>Background Prior clinical studies have used injection port lumen culture as a marker of intravenous (IV) fluid system contamination. We hypothesized that culturing injected saline (effluent) is a more sensitive method of detecting IV fluid system bacterial contamination than lumen culture. To test this hypothesis, we compared the incidence of lumen contamination with effluent contamination in a simulated setting. We also measured the effect of a novel injection port protective device (Port Guide; Matrix Tooling, Inc, Wood Dale, IL) on contamination. Methods In this ex vivo study, 33 providers performed 5 injections of 1 mL sterile saline into each of 4 injection port designs: (1) stopcock, (2) stopcock with Port Guide, (3) stopcock with disinfectable needleless closed connector (DNCC), and (4) stopcock with DNCC and Port Guide. The primary outcome was the rate of effluent contamination with simultaneously contaminated injection port lumen. Results Bacterial organisms were recovered from the effluent in 17 of the 132 injection ports evaluated. Of those 17 injection ports with contaminated effluent, 4 injection port lumens were simultaneously contaminated (24%). Additionally, use of the stopcock with Port Guide significantly reduced effluent contamination. Conclusion Effluent culture is a more sensitive marker of IV fluid system contamination than injection port lumen culture. A novel protective device on the stopcock (Port Guide) significantly reduced IV fluid system bacterial contamination.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0196-6553</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1527-3296</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2010.03.014</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20630618</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Mosby, Inc</publisher><subject>Bacteria - isolation &amp; purification ; Bacterial diseases ; Bacterial infections ; Bacterial sepsis ; Bacteriological Techniques - methods ; Biological and medical sciences ; catheter-related bloodstream infection ; Catheter-Related Infections - prevention &amp; control ; Catheters - microbiology ; Contamination ; Epidemiology. Vaccinations ; General aspects ; hand hygiene ; health care-associated infection ; Human bacterial diseases ; Human infectious diseases. Experimental studies and models ; Humans ; Infection Control ; Infectious Disease ; Infectious diseases ; Intravenous tubing ; Medical sciences ; Parenteral nutrition ; Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><ispartof>American journal of infection control, 2010-11, Vol.38 (9), p.734-739</ispartof><rights>Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc.</rights><rights>2010 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc.</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright © 2010 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Mosby-Year Book, Inc. Nov 2010</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c467t-893f612e6d70fe1bd292721328ca204344a6933daa9ae3bf5558bc32934cc203</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c467t-893f612e6d70fe1bd292721328ca204344a6933daa9ae3bf5558bc32934cc203</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196655310005377$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=23508273$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20630618$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Muffly, Matthew K., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beach, Michael L., MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Isaac Tong, Yi Cai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yeager, Mark P., MD</creatorcontrib><title>Stopcock lumen contamination does not reflect the full burden of bacterial intravenous tubing contamination: Analysis using a novel injection port</title><title>American journal of infection control</title><addtitle>Am J Infect Control</addtitle><description>Background Prior clinical studies have used injection port lumen culture as a marker of intravenous (IV) fluid system contamination. We hypothesized that culturing injected saline (effluent) is a more sensitive method of detecting IV fluid system bacterial contamination than lumen culture. To test this hypothesis, we compared the incidence of lumen contamination with effluent contamination in a simulated setting. We also measured the effect of a novel injection port protective device (Port Guide; Matrix Tooling, Inc, Wood Dale, IL) on contamination. Methods In this ex vivo study, 33 providers performed 5 injections of 1 mL sterile saline into each of 4 injection port designs: (1) stopcock, (2) stopcock with Port Guide, (3) stopcock with disinfectable needleless closed connector (DNCC), and (4) stopcock with DNCC and Port Guide. The primary outcome was the rate of effluent contamination with simultaneously contaminated injection port lumen. Results Bacterial organisms were recovered from the effluent in 17 of the 132 injection ports evaluated. Of those 17 injection ports with contaminated effluent, 4 injection port lumens were simultaneously contaminated (24%). Additionally, use of the stopcock with Port Guide significantly reduced effluent contamination. Conclusion Effluent culture is a more sensitive marker of IV fluid system contamination than injection port lumen culture. A novel protective device on the stopcock (Port Guide) significantly reduced IV fluid system bacterial contamination.</description><subject>Bacteria - isolation &amp; purification</subject><subject>Bacterial diseases</subject><subject>Bacterial infections</subject><subject>Bacterial sepsis</subject><subject>Bacteriological Techniques - methods</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>catheter-related bloodstream infection</subject><subject>Catheter-Related Infections - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Catheters - microbiology</subject><subject>Contamination</subject><subject>Epidemiology. Vaccinations</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>hand hygiene</subject><subject>health care-associated infection</subject><subject>Human bacterial diseases</subject><subject>Human infectious diseases. Experimental studies and models</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infection Control</subject><subject>Infectious Disease</subject><subject>Infectious diseases</subject><subject>Intravenous tubing</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Parenteral nutrition</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><issn>0196-6553</issn><issn>1527-3296</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9ks2KFDEUhYMoTk_rC7iQIMisqs1PVVIlgzAM_sGAi5l9SKVuaWrSSZukGvo1fGJTdDviLFwFku-em3vORegVJRtKqHg3bfRkzYaRckH4htD6CVrRhsmKs048RStCO1GJpuFn6DyliRDScdE8R2eMCE4EbVfo120OOxPMPXbzFjw2wWe9tV5nGzweAiTsQ8YRRgcm4_wD8Dg7h_s5DgUPI-61yRCtdtj6HPUefJgTznNv_fd_5d7jK6_dIdmE57S86qK9h6VwKuJLw12I-QV6NmqX4OXpXKO7Tx_vrr9UN98-f72-uqlMLWSu2o6PgjIQgyQj0H5gHZOMctYazUjN61qLjvNB604D78emadreFGd4bQwjfI0ujrK7GH7OkLLa2mTAOe2hTKCkYGSxVhbyzSNyCnMsoyTVEtnxrint1ogdIRNDSsUvtYt2q-NBUaKWuNSklrjUoqkIVyWuUvT6pDz3WxgeSv7kU4C3J0Ano90YtTc2_eV4Q1omeeEujxwUw_YWokrGgjcw2FisVUOw___Hh0flxllvS8d7OEB6GJeqxBRRt8tiLXtFy0o1XEr-G0FIyes</recordid><startdate>20101101</startdate><enddate>20101101</enddate><creator>Muffly, Matthew K., MD</creator><creator>Beach, Michael L., MD, PhD</creator><creator>Isaac Tong, Yi Cai</creator><creator>Yeager, Mark P., MD</creator><general>Mosby, Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><general>Mosby-Year Book, Inc</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20101101</creationdate><title>Stopcock lumen contamination does not reflect the full burden of bacterial intravenous tubing contamination: Analysis using a novel injection port</title><author>Muffly, Matthew K., MD ; Beach, Michael L., MD, PhD ; Isaac Tong, Yi Cai ; Yeager, Mark P., MD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c467t-893f612e6d70fe1bd292721328ca204344a6933daa9ae3bf5558bc32934cc203</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Bacteria - isolation &amp; purification</topic><topic>Bacterial diseases</topic><topic>Bacterial infections</topic><topic>Bacterial sepsis</topic><topic>Bacteriological Techniques - methods</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>catheter-related bloodstream infection</topic><topic>Catheter-Related Infections - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Catheters - microbiology</topic><topic>Contamination</topic><topic>Epidemiology. Vaccinations</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>hand hygiene</topic><topic>health care-associated infection</topic><topic>Human bacterial diseases</topic><topic>Human infectious diseases. Experimental studies and models</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infection Control</topic><topic>Infectious Disease</topic><topic>Infectious diseases</topic><topic>Intravenous tubing</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Parenteral nutrition</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Muffly, Matthew K., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beach, Michael L., MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Isaac Tong, Yi Cai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yeager, Mark P., MD</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>American journal of infection control</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Muffly, Matthew K., MD</au><au>Beach, Michael L., MD, PhD</au><au>Isaac Tong, Yi Cai</au><au>Yeager, Mark P., MD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Stopcock lumen contamination does not reflect the full burden of bacterial intravenous tubing contamination: Analysis using a novel injection port</atitle><jtitle>American journal of infection control</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Infect Control</addtitle><date>2010-11-01</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>734</spage><epage>739</epage><pages>734-739</pages><issn>0196-6553</issn><eissn>1527-3296</eissn><abstract>Background Prior clinical studies have used injection port lumen culture as a marker of intravenous (IV) fluid system contamination. We hypothesized that culturing injected saline (effluent) is a more sensitive method of detecting IV fluid system bacterial contamination than lumen culture. To test this hypothesis, we compared the incidence of lumen contamination with effluent contamination in a simulated setting. We also measured the effect of a novel injection port protective device (Port Guide; Matrix Tooling, Inc, Wood Dale, IL) on contamination. Methods In this ex vivo study, 33 providers performed 5 injections of 1 mL sterile saline into each of 4 injection port designs: (1) stopcock, (2) stopcock with Port Guide, (3) stopcock with disinfectable needleless closed connector (DNCC), and (4) stopcock with DNCC and Port Guide. The primary outcome was the rate of effluent contamination with simultaneously contaminated injection port lumen. Results Bacterial organisms were recovered from the effluent in 17 of the 132 injection ports evaluated. Of those 17 injection ports with contaminated effluent, 4 injection port lumens were simultaneously contaminated (24%). Additionally, use of the stopcock with Port Guide significantly reduced effluent contamination. Conclusion Effluent culture is a more sensitive marker of IV fluid system contamination than injection port lumen culture. A novel protective device on the stopcock (Port Guide) significantly reduced IV fluid system bacterial contamination.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Mosby, Inc</pub><pmid>20630618</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ajic.2010.03.014</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0196-6553
ispartof American journal of infection control, 2010-11, Vol.38 (9), p.734-739
issn 0196-6553
1527-3296
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_762020107
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Bacteria - isolation & purification
Bacterial diseases
Bacterial infections
Bacterial sepsis
Bacteriological Techniques - methods
Biological and medical sciences
catheter-related bloodstream infection
Catheter-Related Infections - prevention & control
Catheters - microbiology
Contamination
Epidemiology. Vaccinations
General aspects
hand hygiene
health care-associated infection
Human bacterial diseases
Human infectious diseases. Experimental studies and models
Humans
Infection Control
Infectious Disease
Infectious diseases
Intravenous tubing
Medical sciences
Parenteral nutrition
Sensitivity and Specificity
title Stopcock lumen contamination does not reflect the full burden of bacterial intravenous tubing contamination: Analysis using a novel injection port
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T06%3A25%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Stopcock%20lumen%20contamination%20does%20not%20reflect%20the%20full%20burden%20of%20bacterial%20intravenous%20tubing%20contamination:%20Analysis%20using%20a%20novel%20injection%20port&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20infection%20control&rft.au=Muffly,%20Matthew%20K.,%20MD&rft.date=2010-11-01&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=734&rft.epage=739&rft.pages=734-739&rft.issn=0196-6553&rft.eissn=1527-3296&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ajic.2010.03.014&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E762020107%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=807939504&rft_id=info:pmid/20630618&rft_els_id=S0196655310005377&rfr_iscdi=true