Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Temporary Central Venous Catheter Utilization Patterns in a Large Tertiary Care Center Tracking the “Idle Central Venous Catheter”

  • Sheri Chernetsky Tejedor (a1) (a2), David Tong (a1), Jason Stein (a1) (a2), Christina Payne (a1), Daniel Dressler (a1), Wenqiong Xue (a3) and James P. Steinberg (a4)...

Abstract

Objectives.

Although central venous catheter (CVC) dwell time is a major risk factor for catheter-related bloodstream infections (CR-BSIs), few studies reveal how often CVCs are retained when not needed (“idle”). We describe use patterns for temporary CVCs, including peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), on non-ICU wards.

Design.

A retrospective observational study.

Setting.

A 579-bed acute care, academic tertiary care facility.

Methods.

A retrospective observational study of a random sample of patients on hospital wards who have a temporary, nonimplanted CVC, with a focus on on daily ward CVC justification. A uniform definition of idle CVC-days was used.

Results.

We analyzed 89 patients with 146 CVCs (56% of which were PICCs); of 1,433 ward CVC-days, 361 (25.2%) were idle. At least 1 idle day was observed for 63% of patients. Patients had a mean of 4.1 idle days and a mean of 3.4 days with both a CVC and a peripheral intravenous catheter (PIV). After adjusting for ward length of stay, mean CVC dwell time was 14.4 days for patients with PICCs versus 9.0 days for patients with non-PICC temporary CVCs (other CVCs; P< .001). Patients with a PICC had 5.4 days in which they also had a PIV, compared with 10 days in other CVC patients (P< .001). Patients with PICCs had more days in which the only justification for the CVC was intravenous administration of antimicrobial agents (8.5 vs 1.6 days; P = .0013).

Conclusions.

Significant proportions of ward CVC-days were unjustified. Reducing “idle CVC-days” and facilitating the appropriate use of PIVs may reduce CVC-days and CR-BSI risk.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33(1):50-57

Copyright

Corresponding author

Division of Hospital Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, 1364 Clifton Road NE, Box M-7, Atlanta, GA 30322 (scherne@emory.edu)

References

Hide All
1. Climo, M, Diekema, D, Warren, DK, et al. Prevalence of the use of central venous access devices within and outside of the intensive care unit: results of a survey among hospitals in the Prevention Epicenter Program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24:942945.
2. Srinivasan, A, Wise, M, Bell, M, et al. Vital signs: central line-associated blood stream infections—United States, 2001, 2008, and 2009. MMWR Morb Mort Wkly Rep 2011;60(8):243248.
3. Trick, WE, Miranda, J, Evans, AT, et al. Prospective cohort study of central venous catheters among internal medicine ward patients. Am J Infect Control 2006;34:636641.
4. NINSS reports on surgical site infection and hospital acquired bacteraemia. Commun Dis Rep Wkly 2000;10:213, 216.
5. Moro, ML, Vigano, F, Lepri, AC, et al. Risk factors for central venous catheter-related infections in surgical and intensive care units. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994;15:253264.
6. McLaws, ML, Berry, G. Nonuniform risk of bloodstream infection with increasing central venous catheter-days. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2005;26:715719.
7. Milstone, AM, Sengupta, A. Do prolonged peripherally inserted central venous catheter dwell times increase the risk of bloodstream infection? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31:11841187.
8. O'Grady, N, Alexander, M, Burns, LA, et al. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Clin Infect Dis 2011;52(9):e162e163.
9. Edwards, JR, Peterson, KD, Andrus, ML, et al. National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) Report, data summary for 2006, issued June 2007. Am J Infect Control 2007;35:290301.
10. Lederle, FA, Parenti, CM, Berskow, LC, et al. The idle intravenous catheter. Ann Intern Med 1992;116:737738.
11. Parenti, CM, Lederle, FA, Impola, CL, et al. Reduction of unnecessary intravenous catheter use; internal medicine housestaff participate in a successful quality improvement project. Arch Intern Med 1994;154:18291832.
12. Trick, WE, Vernon, MO, Welbel, SF, et al. Unnecessary use of central venous catheters: the need to look outside the intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004;25:266268.
13. Tiwari, MM, Hermsen, ED, Charlton, ME, et al. Inappropriate intravascular device use: a prospective study. J Hosp Infect 2011;78:128132.
14. Safdar, N, Maki, DG. Risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection with peripherally inserted central venous catheters used in hospitalized patients. Chest 2005;128:489495.
15. Periard, D, Monney, P, Waeber, G, et al. Randomized controlled trial of peripherally inserted central catheters vs. peripheral catheters for middle duration in-hospital intravenous therapy. J Thromb Haemost 2008;6:12811288.
16. Maki, DG, Kluger, DM, Crnich, CJ. The risk of bloodstream infection in adults with different intravascular devices: a systematic review of 200 published prospective studies. Mayo Clin Proc 2006;81(9):11591171.
17. Ajenjo, MC, Morley, JC, Russo, AJ, et al. Peripherally inserted central venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections in hospitalized adult patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32(2):125130.
18. Marschall, J, Mermel, LA, Classen, D, et al. Strategies to prevent central line-associated bloodstream infections in acute care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29:S22S30.
19. Webster, J, Osborne, S, Rickard, C, Hall, J. Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;3:CD007798.
20. Milstone, AM, Sengupta, A. Do prolonged peripherally inserted central venous catheter dwell times increase the risk of bloodstream infection? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31:11841187.
21. Stone, B. Ultrasound guidance for peripheral venous access: a simplified Seldinger technique. Anesthesiology 2007;106:195.
22. Brannam, L, Blaivas, M, Lyon, M, et al. Emergency nurses' utilization of ultrasound guidance for placement of peripheral intravenous lines in difficult-access patients. Acad Emerg Med 2004;11(12):13611363.
23. Blaivas, M, Lyon, M. The effect of ultrasound guidance on the perceived difficulty of emergency nurse-obtained peripheral IV access. J Emerg Med 2006;31(4):407410.
24. Costantino, TG, Parikh, AK, Satz, WA, et al. Ultrasonography-guided peripheral intravenous access versus traditional approaches in patients with difficult intravenous access. Ann Emerg Med 2005;46(5):456461.
25. Panebianco, NL, Fredette, JM, Szyld, D, et al. What you see (sonographically) is what you get: vein and patient characteristics associated with successful ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous placement in patients with difficult access. Acad Emerg Med 2009;16:16.

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed