Hostname: page-component-788cddb947-nxk7g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-19T20:59:27.195Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Microbiological Evaluation of Central Venous Catheter Administration Hubs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Jean-Christophe Lucet ,
Jan Hayon ,
Fabrice Bruneel ,
Jean-Louis Dumoulin  and
Marie-Laure Joly-Guillou
Jean-Christophe Lucet*
Affiliation:
Infection Control Unit, Bichat-Claude Bernard University Hospital, Paris, France
Jan Hayon
Affiliation:
Medical Intensive Care Unit, Bichat-Claude Bernard University Hospital, Paris, France
Fabrice Bruneel
Affiliation:
Infectious Diseases Intensive Care Unit, Bichat-Claude Bernard University Hospital, Paris, France
Jean-Louis Dumoulin
Affiliation:
Surgical Intensive Care Unit, Bichat-Claude Bernard University Hospital, Paris, France
Marie-Laure Joly-Guillou
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, Bichat-Claude Bernard University Hospital, Paris, France
*
UHLIN, Groupe Hospitalier Bichat-Claude Bernard, 46 rue Henri Huchard, 75877 Paris, Cedex 18, France
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We compared, in three intensive care units, colonization of hubs with hub protection boxes or hubs with needleless closed connectors; 137 central venous catheters and 451 hubs were randomized in two groups with similar characteristics. Catheter and hub colonization were not different between the two groups. Among 30 colonized catheters, the same isolate was found in only two hubs; hub contamination rarely is responsible for catheter colonization in short-term catheters. Further studies are required to evaluate the benefit of protected hubs compared with unprotected hubs.

Type
Concise Communications
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , January 2000 , pp. 40 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2000

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.Widmer, AF. Intravenous-related infections. In: Wenzel, RP, ed. Prevention and Control of Nosocomial Infections. 3rd ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1997:771–805.Google Scholar
2.Pearson, ML, the Hospital Infections Control Practices Advisory Committee. Guideline for prevention of intravascular device-related infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996;17:438–473.Google Scholar
3.Brun-Buisson, C, Abrouk, F, Legrand, P, Huet, Y, Larabi, S, Rapin, M. Diagnosis of central venous catheter-related sepsis. Critical level of quantitative tip cultures. Arch Intern Med 1987;147:873–877.Google Scholar
4.Maki, DG, Ringer, M. Evaluation of dressing regimens for prevention of infection with peripheral intravenous catheter. JAMA 1987;258:2397–2403.Google Scholar
5.Arduino, MJ, Bland, LA, Danzig, LE, McAllister, SK, Aguero, SM. Microbiologic evaluation of needleless and needle-access devices. Am J Infect Control 1997;25:377–380.Google Scholar
6.Luebke, MA, Arduino, MJ, Duda, DL, Dudar, TE, McAllister, SK, Bland, IA, et al. Comparison of the microbial barrier properties of a needleless and conventional needle-based intravenous access system. Am J Infect Control 1998;26:437–441.Google Scholar
7.Adams, KS, Zehrer, CL, Thomas, W. Comparison of a needleless system with conventional heparin locks. Am J Infect Control 1993;21:263–269.Google Scholar
8.Crow, S, Conrad, SA, Chaney-Rowell, C, King, JW. Microbial contamination of arterial infusions used for hemodynamic monitoring: a randomized trial of contamination with sampling through conventional stopcocks versus a novel closed system. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1989;10:557–561.Google Scholar
9.Danzig, LE, Short, LJ, Coffings, K, Mahoney, M, Sepe, S, Bland, L, et al. Bloodstream infections associated with a needleless intravenous infusion system in patients receiving home infusion therapy. JAMA 1995;273:1862–1864.Google Scholar
10.Raad, I, Abi-Said, D, Awad, A, et al. Optimal frequency of changing intravenous administration sets: is it safe to prolong duration of use beyond 3 days? In: Proceedings of the 37th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; September 28-October 1, 1997; Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Abstract J-199:325.Google Scholar