Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-ffbbcc459-7c245 Total loading time: 0.223 Render date: 2022-03-13T05:09:49.870Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }
  • English
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology

Article contents

Infection Rate for Single Lumen v Triple Lumen Subclavian Catheters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Carole Yeung ,
John May  and
Roger Hughes
Carole Yeung
Affiliation:
Infection Control Section of the Clinical Laboratory, Baptist Medical Center, Little Rock, Arkansas
John May*
Affiliation:
Infection Control Section of the Clinical Laboratory, Baptist Medical Center, Little Rock, Arkansas
Roger Hughes
Affiliation:
Infection Control Section of the Clinical Laboratory, Baptist Medical Center, Little Rock, Arkansas
*
Laboratory, Baptist Medical Center, 9601 Interstate 630, Exit 7, Little Rock, AR 72205
Get access Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An infection rate was calculated for all subclavian catheters inserted during a 12-month period. The overall, single lumen, and triple lumen infection rates were 1.7% (42/2,431), 0.4% (8/1,936), and 6.9% (34/495), respectively. After excluding single lumen catheters in patients in a surgical cardiovascular unit who appeared to have a decreased risk of infection, the overall, single lumen, and triple lumen rates were 3.7% (42/1,140), 1.2% (8/645), and 6.9% (34/495), respectively. Within this group, 11.8% (281237) of the catheters used for total parenteral nutrition (TPN) were infected, whereas 1.6% (14/903) of the non-TPN catheters were infected. Of patients receiving total parental nutrition through a triple lumen catheter, 14.5% (25/172) became infected, whereas 4.6% (3/65) of the patients receiving total parental nutrition through a single lumen catheter became infected. Single and triple lumen patient groups appeared comparable based on average age, death rate, immunosuppression, underlying disease, and duration of catheterization, but the risk of infection was approximately three times greater for patients receiving total parental nutrition through a triple lumen catheter.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , April 1988 , pp. 154 - 158
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Maki, DG, EW, Weise, HW, Sarafin: A semi-quantitative culture method for identifying intravenous-catheter-related infections. N Engl J Med 1977; 296:1305–1309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. BM, Soule: The APIC Curriculum for Infection Control Practice. Dubuque, Kendall/Hunt, 1983, p 602.Google Scholar
3. Pemberton, LB, Lyman, B, Lander, V, et al: Sepsis from triple- vs single-lumen catheters during total parenteral nutrition in surgical or critic-ally ill patients. Arch Surg 1986; 121:591–594.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. McCarthy, MC, JK, Shives, Robison, RJ, et al: Prospective evaluation of single and triple lumen catheters in total parenteral nutrition.,/ Patenter Enteral Nutr 1987; 11:259–262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. KN, Apelgren: Triple lumen catheters. Technological advance or setback? Am Surg 1987; 53:113–116.Google Scholar
6. Miller, JJ, Bahman, V, Mathru, M: Comparison of the sterility of the long-term central venous catheterization using single lumen, triple lumen, and pulmonary artery catheters. Crit Care Med 1984; 12:634–637.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. RP, Wenzel (ed): Prevention and Control Nosocomial Infections. Baltimore, Williams and Wilkms, 1987, pp 311.312.Google Scholar
44
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Infection Rate for Single Lumen v Triple Lumen Subclavian Catheters
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Infection Rate for Single Lumen v Triple Lumen Subclavian Catheters
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Infection Rate for Single Lumen v Triple Lumen Subclavian Catheters
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *