No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A surveillance program for long-term central venous access–associated infections in outpatient chemotherapy services
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 April 2023
Abstract
Objective:
In this study, we described the first results of a surveillance system for infections associated with long-term central venous catheters (LT-CVC) in patients under outpatient chemotherapy.
Design:
This was a multicentric, prospective study.
Setting:
Outpatient chemotherapy services.
Participants:
The study included 8 referral cancer centers in the State of São Paulo.
Intervention:
These services were invited to participate in a newly created surveillance program for patients under chemotherapy. Several meetings were convened to share previous experiences on LT-CVC infection surveillance and to define the surveillance method. Once the program was implemented, all bloodstream infection (LT-CVC BSIs), tunnel infection, and exit-site infections associated with LT-CVC were reported. Data from January to May 2021 were analyzed. The median monthly number of chemotherapy sessions per clinic was 925 (IQR, 270–5,855). We used Poisson regression to analyze the association of rates with the characteristics of the services.
Results:
In total, 107 LT-CVC infections were reported, of which 95% were BSIs, mostly associated with totally implantable devices (76%). Infections occurred a median of 4 days after the last catheter manipulation and 116 after the LT-CVC insertion. Also, 102 microorganisms were isolated from LT-CVC BSIs; the most common pathogen was Staphylococcus epidermidis, at 22%. Moreover, 44 infections (44%) fulfilled the criteria for CVC-related LT-CVC BSI and 27 infections (27%) met the criteria for mucosal barrier injury. The 1-year cumulative LT-CVC BSI rate was 1.94 per 1,000 CVC days of use. The rates were higher in public hospitals (IRR, 6.00; P < .001) and in hospitals that already had in place surveillance for LT-CVC infections (IRR, 2.01; P < .01).
Conclusion:
Our study describes an applicable surveillance method for infections in cancer outpatients using LT-CVC.
- Type
- Original Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America
References
Lebeaux, D, Fernández-Hidalgo, N, Chauhan, A, et al. Management of infections related to totally implantable venous-access ports: challenges and perspectives. Lancet Infect Dis 2014;14:146–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinelli, F, Cecero, E, Degl’Innocenti, D, et al. Infection of totally implantable venous access devices: a review of the literature. J Vasc Access 2018;19:230–242.10.1177/1129729818758999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Touré, A, Vanhems, P, Lombard-Bohas, C, et al. Totally implantable central venous access port infections in patients with digestive cancer: incidence and risk factors. Am J Infect Control 2012;40:935–939.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yoshida, J, Ishimaru, T, Kikuchi, T, Matsubara, N, Asano, I. Association between risk of bloodstream infection and duration of use of totally implantable access ports and central lines: a 24-month study. Am J Infect Control 2011;39:e39–e43.10.1016/j.ajic.2010.11.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsu, J-F, Chang, H-L, Tsai, M-J, et al. Port type is a possible risk factor for implantable venous access port-related bloodstream infections and no sign of local infection predicts the growth of gram-negative bacilli. World J Surg Oncol 2015;13:288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freire, MP, Pierrotti, LC, Zerati, AE, et al. Infection related to implantable central venous access devices in cancer patients: epidemiology and risk factors. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34.Google ScholarPubMed
Busch, JD, Herrmann, J, Heller, F, Derlin, T, Koops, A, Adam, G, et al. Follow-up of radiologically totally implanted central venous access ports of the upper arm: long-term complications in 127,750 catheter days. Am J Roentgenol 2012;199:447–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Y-F, Lo, A-C, Tsai, C-H, et al. Higher complication risk of totally implantable venous access port systems in patients with advanced cancer—a single institution retrospective analysis. Palliat Med 2013;27:185–191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, TY, Der, Lee K, Chen, PT, et al. Incidence and risk factors for central venous access port-related infection in Chinese cancer patients. J Formos Med Assoc 2015;114:1055–1060.10.1016/j.jfma.2015.06.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CDC/NHSN bloodstream infection event (central-line–associated bloodstream infection and non–central-line–associated bloodstream infection). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/pscmanual/4psc_clabscurrent.pdf Accessed April 24, 2021.Google Scholar
Mermel, LA, Allon, M, Bouza, E, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of intravascular catheter-related infection: 2009 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2009;49:1–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magiorakos, AP, Srinivasan, A, Carey, RB, et al. Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: an international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clin Microbiol Infect 2012;18:268–281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zakhour, R, Chaftari, AM, Raad, II. Catheter-related infections in patients with haematological malignancies: novel preventive and therapeutic strategies. Lancet Infect Dis 2016;16:e241–e250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raad, I, Chaftari, A-M. Advances in prevention and management of central-line–associated bloodstream infections in patients with cancer. Clin Infect Dis 2014;59 suppl 5:S340–S343.10.1093/cid/ciu670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, M, Li, C, Pan, C, Yu, L. The risk of bloodstream infection associated with totally implantable venous access ports in cancer patient : a systematic review and meta-analysis. Support Care Cancer 2020:361–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mollee, P, Okano, S, Abro, E, et al. Catheter-associated bloodstream infections in adults with cancer: a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Hosp Infect 2020;106:335–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shim, J, Seo, TS, Song, MG, et al. Incidence and risk factors of infectious complications related to implantable venous-access ports. Korean J Radiol 2014;15:494–500.10.3348/kjr.2014.15.4.494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, YC, Lin, PL, Chou, WH, Lin, CP, Huang, CH. Long-term outcomes of totally implantable venous access devices. Support Care Cancer 2017;25:2049–2054.10.1007/s00520-017-3592-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, TC, Hsuan, M, Kee, Y, Kiu, T. Incidence and risk factor for infection of totally implantable venous access port. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2022;407:343–351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Id, BL, Wu, Z, Lin, C, Li, L, Kuang, X. Applicability of TIVAP versus PICC in nonhematological malignancies patients: a meta-analysis and systematic review. PLoS One 2021;16:e0255473.Google Scholar
Kato, Y, Hagihara, M, Kurumiya, A, et al. Impact of mucosal barrier injury laboratory-confirmed bloodstream infection (MBI-LCBI) on central-line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) in department of hematology at single university hospital in Japan. J Infect Chemother 2018;24:31–35.10.1016/j.jiac.2017.08.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, D, Sen, J, Lassiter, K, et al. Prospective initiative to reduce mucosal barrier injuries and bloodstream infections in patients with hematologic malignancy receiving inpatient chemotherapy. JCO Oncol Pract 2020;16:e306–e312.10.1200/JOP.19.00344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres, D, González, ML, Loera, A, et al. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition of mucosal barrier injury-associated bloodstream infection improves accurate detection of preventable bacteremia rates at a pediatric cancer center in a low- to middle-income country. Am J Infect Control 2016;44:432–437.10.1016/j.ajic.2015.11.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fares, J, Khalil, M, Chaftari, AM, et al. Impact of catheter management on clinical outcome in adult cancer patients with gram-negative bacteremia. Open Forum Infect Dis 2019;6:1–6.Google ScholarPubMed
Vermeulin, T, Lucas, M, Marini, H, et al. Totally implanted venous access-associated adverse events in oncology: results from a prospective 1-year surveillance programme. Bull Cancer 2018;105:1003–1011.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lecronier, M, Valade, S, Bigé, N, et al. Removal of totally implanted venous access ports for suspected infection in the intensive care unit: a multicenter observational study. Ann Intensive Care 2018;8:41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freire, MP, Pierrotti, LC, Zerati, AE, et al. Role of lock therapy for long-term catheter-related infections by multidrug-resistant bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2018;62:1–9.10.1128/AAC.00569-18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viana Taveira, MR, Lima, LS, de Araújo, CC, de Mello, MJG. Risk factors for central-line–associated bloodstream infection in pediatric oncology patients with a totally implantable venous access port: a cohort study. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2017;64:336–342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
da Silva Gama, ZA, Saturno Hernández, PJ, Reis de Freitas, M, et al. Good infection prevention practices in three Brazilian hospitals: implications for patient safety policies. J Infect Public Health 2019;12:619–624.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed