Suspicious hemodialysis central venous catheter-related infections

  • Julio Medina Universidad de la República, Facultad de Medicina, Cátedra de Enfermedades Infecciosas, Asistente. Especialista en Enfermedades Infecciosas y Medicina Intensiva
  • María Rodríguez Especialista en Enfermedades Infecciosas
  • Rosana Astesiano Universidad de la República, Facultad de Medicina, Medicina Intensiva, Ex Residente. Postgrado de la Cátedra de Nefrología
  • Eduardo Savio Universidad de la República, Facultad de Medicina, Cátedra de Enfermedades Infecciosas, Profesor
  • Francisco González Universidad de la República, Facultad de Medicina, Cátedra de Nefrología, Profesor
  • Cristina Bazet Universidad de la República, Facultad de Medicina, Hospital de Clínicas, Laboratorio Clínico, repartición Microbiología, Profesora Agregada
  • Verónica Seija Universidad de la República, Facultad de Medicina, Hospital de Clínicas, Departamento de Bacteriología y Virología, Prof. Adjunto. Departamento de Laboratorio Clínico. Repartición Microbiología, Asistente
Keywords: CENTRAL VENOUS CATHETERISM, KIDNEY DIALYSIS, INFECTION CONTROL

Abstract

Background. To determine central venous catheter related infection (IRcat) in carriers of central venous catheter (CVC) is of vital importance in order to avoid unnecessary removal of CVC.
Objectives. 1. to determine the frequency of the removed CVC because of suspicion of IRcat (not confirmed). 2. to identify clinical factors that improve IRcat diagnose.
Methods. The observational study was conducted from May, 1 to September, 30, 2003 at the Nephrology Department (Hospital de Clínicas). The inclusion criteria were as follow: patients of the Nephrology Department over 18 years old who underwent an hemodialysis CVC.
Results. One hundred and seven consecutive patients carriers of CVC were enrolled in the study: 50 CVC (46.7%) were removed because of infectious causes and the left 57 (53.3%) due to other causes.
The first group was divided in two: a) removed CVC with subsequent IRcat, n = 22 (44%); and b) removed CVC without IRcat, n = 28 (56%).
A 20-variable comparison using an univariated analysis was done: a 14-day CVC was associated with temperature corresponding to IRcat (p = 0.02, OR = 2.1, IC 95% = 1.2-3.7).
Conclusions. Fifty six percent (56%) of hemodialysis CVC removed because of infectious causes were not confirmed as infection process. A 14-day CVC was associated with IRcat in the cases of infection process.

References

1) Polderman KH, Girbes AR Central venous catheter us: Part 2: infectious complications. Intensive Care Med 2002; 28(1): 18-28.
2) Mermel LA, Farr BM, Sherertz RJ, Raad II, O’Grady N, Harris JS, et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America; American College of Critical Care Medicine; Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Guidelines for the Management of intravascular catheter-related infections. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 32(9): 1249-72.
3) Valles J, Rello J. Bacteriemias nosocomiales en cuidado intensivo. In: Net A, Quintana E, eds. Infecciones en el paciente crítico. Barcelona: Springer-Verlag Ibérica, 1997:177.
4) Lombardi R. Infecciones relacionada con catéteres de hemodiálisis. In: Rodríguez A, Rello J, San Juan JA, Álvares Rocha L, dirs. Infecciones por catéteres vasculares. Madrid: Médica Panamericana, 2003.
5) Favero MS, Tokars JI, Arduino MJ, Alter MJ. Nosocomial infections associated with hemodialysis. In: Mayhall CG, ed. Hospital epidemiology and infection control. 2dn ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 1999: 897-917.
6) Rello J, Coll P, Prats G. Evaluation of culture techniques for diagnosis of catheter-related sepsis in critically ill patients. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1992; 11(12): 1192-3.
7) Maki DG, Weise CE, Sarafin HW. A semiquantitative culture method for identifying intravenous catheter–related infections. N Engl J Med 1977; 296(23): 1305-9.
8) O’Grady NP, Alexander M, Dellinger EP, Gerberding JL, Heard SO, Maki DG, et a, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. MMWR Recomm Rep 2002; 51(RR-10): 1-29.
9) Rieppi G. Infecciones relacionadas a catéteres endovenosos. In: Correa H, Ribero J, ed. Sepsis, tratamiento intensivo de las infecciones graves. Montevideo: Oficina del Libro FEFMUR, 2003: 281-96.
10) Pearson ML, Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Guidelines for prevention of intravascular device related infections. Am J Infect Control 1996; 24(4): 262-77.
11) Kite P, Dobbins BM, Wilcox MH, McMahon MJ. Rapid diagnosis of central-venous-catheter-related bloodstream infection without catheter removal. Lancet 1999; 354(9189): 1504-7.
12) Blot F, Nitenberg G, Chachaty E, Raynard B, Germann N, Antoun S, et al. Diagnosis of catheter-related bacteraemia: a prospective comparison of the time to positivity of hub-blood versus peripheral-blood cultures Lancet 1999; 354(9184): 1071-7.
13) Raad I, Hanna HA, Alakech B, Chatzinikolaou I, Johnson MM, Tarrand J. Differential time to positivity: a useful method for diagnosing catheter-related bloodstream infections. Ann Intern Med 2004; 140(1): 18-25.
Published
2006-03-31
How to Cite
1.
Medina J, Rodríguez M, Astesiano R, Savio E, González F, Bazet C, Seija V. Suspicious hemodialysis central venous catheter-related infections. Rev. Méd. Urug. [Internet]. 2006Mar.31 [cited 2024Nov.23];22(1):29-5. Available from: http://www2.rmu.org.uy/ojsrmu311/index.php/rmu/article/view/781
Issue
Vol 22 No 1 (2006): Revista Médica del Uruguay
Section
Original Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.