4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Uso y abuso de los catéteres intravenosos en las plantas de hospitalización convencional Translated title: Use and abuse of intravenous catheters in conventional hospital wards

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Antecedentes: Existe escasa información acerca del uso de catéteres venosos (CVs) en unidades de hospitalización convencionales y la incidencia bacteriemia relacionada con catéteres venosos (BRCV) en dichas unidades. Objetivos: Evaluar el uso de catéteres venosos (CVs) en pacientes ingresados en plantas convencionales de un hospital general y las consecuencias en términos de BRCV. Métodos: Se evaluó durante una semana el uso de catéteres venosos y la densidad de incidencia de BRCV en pacientes adultos ingresados en los servicios de hospitalización del hospital 12 de Octubre de Madrid. Resultados: Se analizaron las historias clínicas de 731 pacientes (284 en servicios médicos y 447 en servicios quirúrgicos), de los cuales 338 (46,2%) eran portadores en ese momento de un CV periférico y 63 (8,6%) de un CV central. La media de días de colocación de un CV central fue globalmente de 11,5 (IC 95% 5,57-17,42), 28,3 en los servicios médicos días y 8,32 en los servicios quirúrgicos (p = 0,2). En el 27,7% de los pacientes con CVs la única indicación para el uso de un CV fue la administración intravenosa de antibióticos a pesar de que el paciente toleraba por vía oral y en un 30% de las ocasiones no había ninguna especificación en la historia que permitiera aclarar cuál era la indicación para la colocación del CV. Se detectó BRCV en 12/401 pacientes (3%). La densidad de incidencia de BRC en CV centrales fue de 8,28 por cada 1.000 días de catéter. Conclusiones: Existen claros aspectos que deben mejorarse en cuanto a la prevención de la BRC, fundamentalmente respecto al ajuste de las indicaciones, el tiempo que permanecen los catéteres centrales implantados y, sobre todo, en cuanto a las oportunidades perdidas de retirar el catéter secuenciando la medicación a vía oral.

          Translated abstract

          Background: Information regarding the use intravenous catheters (IVC) in conventional hospital units and its consequence in terms of intravenous catéter-related bacteremia (ICRB) is scarce. Objectives: To evaluate the use of IVC in patients admitted in conventional wards of a general hospital and to measure IVCRB incidence in such patients. Methods: We evaluated during one week IVC use in adult patients admitted in 12 de Octubre Hospital and we calculated la incidence densitity of ICRB. Results: We evaluated the clinical charts of 731 patients (284 from medical wards and 447 from surgical wards), of which 338 (46.2%) had a peripheral VC inserted and 63 (8.6%) a central IVC. Central IVC had been inserted for a mean time 11.5 days globally (CI 95% 5.57-17.42), being 28.3 in medical wards and 8.32 days in surgical wards (p=0.2). In 27.7 % of the patients with IVC intravenous antimicrobials was the only reason for the use of such catheters in spite of adequate oral tolerance in 30 % of the patients with central IVC an specific note explaining the reason for implanting such catheter was lacking in the clinical chart. IVCRB was detected in 12/401 patients (3%). The incidence density of IVCRB in central IVC was 8.28 per 1000 catheter-days. Conclusions: There are some aspects that could be clearly improved regarding the prevention of IVCRB, mostly in the indications, the excess of time those catheters are kept implanted and in the lost chances for catheter withdrawal when switch-therapy could be performed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Nosocomial infections in combined medical-surgical intensive care units in the United States.

          To describe the epidemiology of nosocomial infections in combined medical-surgical (MS) intensive care units (ICUs) participating in the National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance (NNIS) System. Analysis of surveillance data on 498,998 patients with 1,554,070 patient-days, collected between 1992 and 1998 from 205 MS ICUs following the NNIS Intensive Care Unit protocol, representing 152 participating NNIS hospitals in the United States. Infections at three major sites represented 68% of all reported infections (nosocomial pneumonia, 31%; urinary tract infections (UTIs), 23%; and primary bloodstream infections (BSIs), 14%: 83% of episodes of nosocomial pneumonia were associated with mechanical ventilation, 97% of UTIs occurred in catheterized patients, and 87% of primary BSIs in patients with a central line. In patients with primary BSIs, coagulase-negative staphylococci (39%) were the most common pathogens reported; Staphylococcus aureus (12%) was as frequently reported as enterococci (11%). Coagulase-negative staphylococcal BSIs were increasingly reported over the 6 years, but no increase was seen in candidemia or enterococcal bacteremia. In patients with pneumonia, S. aureus (17%) was the most frequently reported isolate. Of reported isolates, 59% were gram-negative bacilli. In patients with UTIs, Escherichia coli (19%) was the most frequently reported isolate. Of reported isolates, 31% were fungi. In patients with surgical-site infections, Enterococcus (17%) was the single most frequently reported pathogen. Device-associated nosocomial infection rates for BSIs, pneumonia, and UTIs did not correlate with length of ICU stay, hospital bed size, number of beds in the ICU, or season. Combined MS ICUs in major teaching hospitals had higher device-associated infection rates compared to all other hospitals with combined medical-surgical units. Nosocomial infections in MS ICUs at the most frequent infection sites (bloodstream, urinary, and respiratory tract) almost always were associated with use of an invasive device. Device-associated infection rates were the best available comparative rates between combined MS ICUs, but the distribution of device-associated rates should be stratified by a hospital's major teaching affiliation status.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

            These guidelines have been developed for practitioners who insert catheters and for persons responsible for surveillance and control of infections in hospital, outpatient, and home health-care settings. This report was prepared by a working group comprising members from professional organizations representing the disciplines of critical care medicine, infectious diseases, health-care infection control, surgery anesthesiology interventional radiology pulmonary medicine, pediatric medicine, and nursing. The working group was led by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), in collaboration with the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA), Society for Healthcare Epidemiology ofAmerica (SHEA), Surgical Infection Society (SIS), American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), American Thoracic Society (ATS), American Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists (ASCCA), Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), Infusion Nurses Society (INS), Oncology Nursing Society (ONS), Society of Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology (SCVIR), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and is intended to replace the Guideline for Prevention of Intravascular Device-Related Infections published in 1996 These guidelines are intended to provide evidence-based recommendations for preventing catheter-related infections. Major areas of emphasis include 1) educating and training health-care providers who insert and maintain catheters; 2) using maximal sterile barrier precautions during central venous catheter insertion; 3) using a 2% chlorhexidine preparation for skin antisepsis; 4) avoiding routine replacement of central venous catheters as a strategy to prevent infection; and 5) using antiseptic/antibiotic impregnated short-term central venous catheters if the rate of infection is high despite adherence to other strategies (i.e., education and training, maximal sterile barrier precautions, and 2% chlorhexidine for skin antisepsis). These guidelines also identify performance indicators that can be used locally by health-care institutions or organizations to monitor their success in implementing these evidence-based recommendations.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A European perspective on intravascular catheter-related infections: report on the microbiology workload, aetiology and antimicrobial susceptibility (ESGNI-005 Study).

              The laboratory workload, microbiological techniques and aetiology of catheter-related infections in European hospitals are mostly unknown. The present study (ESGNI-005) comprised a 1-day (22 October 2001), laboratory-based, point-prevalence survey based on a questionnaire completed by microbiology laboratories in European (European Union (EU) and non-EU) hospitals. Also included were questions requesting retrospective information for the year 2000. In total, 151 hospitals from 26 European countries participated, of which 78.1% were teaching institutions. Overall, the estimated population served by these institutions was 121,363,800, and the estimated number of admissions during 2000 was 6,712,050. The total number of catheter tips processed during 2000 was 142,727, or 21/1,000 admissions, of which 23.7% were considered to be positive in the institutions using semiquantitative or quantitative techniques. Overall, EU centres received significantly more catheter tip samples/1,000 admissions and had a significantly higher rate of 'positivity' (p < 0.0001) than non-EU centres. Of the institutions surveyed, 11.4% (7.2% in EU countries and 23.7% in non-EU countries; p 0.04) used only qualitative techniques for catheter tip sample processing. On the day of the study, 167 microorganisms were recovered from significant catheter tip cultures (122 patients), of which Gram-positive bacteria represented 70.7%, Gram-negative bacteria 22.2%, and yeasts 7.2%. The five most common microorganisms were coagulase-negative staphylococci, Staphylococcus aureus, Candida spp., Enterococcus spp. and Pseudomonas spp. Overall, 19% of catheter tip cultures were polymicrobial. In the case of S. aureus, 40% of isolates were resistant to oxacillin, as were 63.4% of coagulase-negative staphylococcus isolates. Of 37 Gram-negative isolates, 35% were resistant to cefotaxime, 31% to ceftazidime, and 27% to ciprofloxacin. Imipenem and cefepime had the lowest reported rates of resistance (11%).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Journal
                ami
                Anales de Medicina Interna
                An. Med. Interna (Madrid)
                Arán Ediciones, S. L. (Madrid )
                0212-7199
                October 2006
                : 23
                : 10
                : 475-477
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre
                Article
                S0212-71992006001000004
                10.4321/s0212-71992006001000004
                73ed71b3-9538-4f1a-836e-31c53af38669

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History
                Categories
                MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL

                Internal medicine
                Intravenous catheter,Infection,Bacteremia,Use,Prevention,Catéter intravenoso,Infección,Bacteriemia,Uso,Prevención

                Comments

                Comment on this article