Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-684bc48f8b-9ddkh Total loading time: 0.284 Render date: 2021-04-12T17:06:47.322Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

The Multi-lumen Catheter: Proposed Guidelines for Its Use

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Bruce F. Farber
Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Disease and Immunology, North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, New York, and Cornell University Medical College


Infusion therapy for the administration of blood products, fluids, and parenteral nutrition are essential parts of medical practice. The risks associated with such therapy are well documented but frequently unappreciated. Intravascular infusions are the single most common cause of nosocomial bacteremia.’ Many studies have focused on the epidemiology, microbiology, and pathophysiology of these infections.

In recent years, several companies have introduced a multi-lumen intravenous catheter that is placed through the subclavian or internal jugular vein. Unlike a multi-lumen pulmonary artery catheter, the multi-lumen intravenous catheter is designed solely for intravenous access. The first of these catheters was introduced in 1983, and it was soon followed by several others. These catheters have been designed to allow multiple infusions to be given simultaneously. In addition, one of the ports can be used for venous access. The advantages of these catheters are obvious. The clinician is given three ports for use instead of one. The catheter may be used to simplify infusion therapy. In some instances, cut-downs and other invasive procedures (Hickmans, Broviacs, Mediports) may be avoided. It is not surprising that the use of these catheters has grown. In many institutions, multi-lumen catheters account for a majority of all centrally placed catheters, and in some intensive care units, they are used almost exclusively. The enormous growth of the use of the multi-lumen catheter has occurred despite minimal data regarding risk, cost, and the proper procedures needed for its care.

Special Sections
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.


1. Maki, DG: Infections associated with intra-vascular lines, in, Remington, JS, Swartz, MN (eds): Current Clinical Topics in infectious Diseases. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co, 1982. p 309363.Google Scholar
2. Maki, DG: Nosocomial bacteremia—An epidemiologic overview. Am J Med 1981; 70:719732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Maki, DG: Sepsis arising from extrinsic contamination of the infusion and measures for control, in Phillips, I (ed): Microbiologic Hazards of Intravenous Therapy. Lancaster, England, MTP Press, 1977.Google Scholar
4. Buxton, AK, Highsmith, AK, Garner, JS, et al: Contamination of intravenous infusion fluid: Effects of changing administration sets. Ann Intern Med 1979; 90:764768.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. National Coordinating Committee on Large Volume Parenterals: Recommended procedures for in-use testing of large volume parenterals suspected of contamination or of producing a reaction in a patient. Am J Hosp Pharm 1975; 32:1251.Google Scholar
6. Centers for Disease Control Working Group: Guidelines for Prevention and Control of Nosocomial Infections. Washington, DC, USDHHS-PHS, 1981.Google Scholar
7. Miller, JJ. Bahman, V, Mathdu, M: Comparison of the sterility of long-term central venous catheterization using single lumen, triple lumen, and pulmonary artery catheters. Crit Care Med 1984, 12:634637.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Maki, DG, Weise, CE, Sarafin, HW: A semiquantitative culture method for identifying intravenous catheter-related infection. N Engl J Med 1977; 296:13051309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Farber, BF, Goetz, A, Fleming, J, et al: Multi-hospital study of infection associated with triple lumen catheters. Clin Res 1987; 35:473A.Google Scholar
10. Curry, CR, Quie, P: Fungal septicemia in patients receiving parenteral hyperalimentation. N Engl J Med 1971; 285:12211225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Prian, GW, Van Luay, CW: The long arm silastic catheter: A critical look at complications. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1978; 2:124128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Geiss, AC, Friedman, AC: Evaluation of unaccountable phlebitis with long arm silastic catheter. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1980; 4:511513.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Ranter, RK, Zimmerman, JJ, Straus, R, et al: Central venous catheter insertion by femoral vein: Safety and effectiveness for the pediatric patient. Pediatrics 1986; 77:842846.Google Scholar
14. Seropian, R, Reynolds, BM: Wound infections after preoperative depilatory versus razor preparations. Am J Surg 1983; 118:347352.Google Scholar
15. Alexander, JW, Fisher, JF. et al: The influence of hair removal methods on wound infections. Arch Surg 1983; 118:347352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Jarrard, MM, Freeman, JB: The effects of antibiotic ointments and skin flora beneath subclavian catheter dressings during intravenous hyperalimentation. J Surg Res 1977; 22:521526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Norden, CW: Application of antibiotic ointment to the site of venous catheterization: A controlled trial. J Infect Dis 1969; 120:611615.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Goldmann, DA, Maki, DG: Infection control in total parenteral nutrition. JAMA 1983; 223:13601364.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Craven, DE. Lichenberg, DA, et al: A randomized study comparing a transparent polyurethane dressing to a dry gauze dressing for peripheral intravenous catheter sites. Infect Control 1985; 6:361366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Murphy, LM, Tipman, TO: Central venous catheter care in parenteral nutrition: A review. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1987; 11:190200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 2 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 12th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure 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 or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ 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.

The Multi-lumen Catheter: Proposed Guidelines for Its Use
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.

The Multi-lumen Catheter: Proposed Guidelines for Its Use
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.

The Multi-lumen Catheter: Proposed Guidelines for Its Use
Available formats

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *