Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-wpx69 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-12T07:10:35.552Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Biased Low Incidence of Central Venous Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections in Controlled Clinical Trials?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

Enrico Schalk*
Affiliation:
Department of Hematology and Oncology, Medical Center, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany.
Thomas Fischer
Affiliation:
Department of Hematology and Oncology, Medical Center, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany.
*
Address correspondence to Enrico Schalk, MD, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Medical Center, Department of Hematology and Oncology, Leipziger Str. 44, D-39120 Magdeburg, Germany (enrico.schalk@med.ovgu.de).
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Letters to the Editor
Copyright
© 2016 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved 

To the Editor—In the 3SITES trial,Reference Parienti, Mongardon and Mégarbane 1 the incidences of central venous catheter (CVC)-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) after 1:1:1 randomized catheterization of the internal jugular, subclavian, or femoral vein, respectively, were compared among adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The low total CRBSI incidence in this trial was stated to be consistent with data from other ICUs. 2 Unfortunately, however, the total CRBSI incidence was not clearly indicated in the 3SITES trial. Using the data provided,Reference Parienti, Mongardon and Mégarbane 1 we calculated a CRBSI rate of 1.0% (26 per 2,532 CVCs); for all 3 CVC insertion sites, the mean CRBSI incidence was 1.7 per 1,000 CVC days.

We believe that the reported incidence was rather low and was biased by the diagnostic criteria used.Reference Schalk, Hanus, Färber, Fischer and Heidel 3 For CRBSI diagnosis in the 3SITES trial, only CVC-tip colonization combined with detection of the same pathogen in peripheral blood was taken into account. Differential time to positivity of central and peripheral blood cultures was not used in the 3SITES trial.Reference Parienti, Mongardon and Mégarbane 1 However, this is a well-established parameter for CRBSI diagnosisReference Mermel, Allon and Bouza 4 in addition to the aforementioned criterion; it is also a criterion of definite CRBSI.Reference Schalk, Hanus, Färber, Fischer and Heidel 3 , Reference Hentrich, Schalk and Schmidt-Hieber 5 Furthermore, the cutoff of colony-forming units (CFU) for CVC-tip colonization was 1,000 in quantitative culture,Reference Parienti, Mongardon and Mégarbane 1 which is higher than is usually recommended.Reference Mermel, Allon and Bouza 4 , Reference Hentrich, Schalk and Schmidt-Hieber 5 Instead of quantitative cultures, semiquantitative cultures with a CFU cutoff of 15 should be used for diagnosis of CVC-tip colonization.Reference Mermel, Allon and Bouza 4 However, a CFU cutoff of 15 in semiquantitative culture is the recommended equivalent of a cutoff of 100 in quantitative culture.Reference Mermel, Allon and Bouza 4 , Reference Hentrich, Schalk and Schmidt-Hieber 5 In addition, the median duration of CVC catheterization in the 3SITES trial was only 5 days;Reference Parienti, Mongardon and Mégarbane 1 however, CRBSIs are known to be associated with the length of CVC use in situ.Reference Schalk, Hanus, Färber, Fischer and Heidel 3 , Reference Pepin, Thom and Sorkin 6

Due to the diagnostic criteria used and the low number of CVC catheterization days, we believe the CRBSI rate and incidence, respectively, in the 3SITES trial were underestimated and do not represent a real-life setting. Therefore, we compared CRBSI data used in the 3SITE trial with CRBSI data from our SECRECY registry. SECRECY (German Clinical Trial Register No. DRKS00006551) is a real-life registry of CRBSIs in patients with hematological and oncological malignancies;Reference Schalk, Hanus, Färber, Fischer and Heidel 3 , Reference Schalk, Färber, Fischer and Heidel 7 this is a high-risk population for CRBSI, comparable to the ICU patients in the 3SITES trial.

Using SECRECY data up to January 25, 2016, we report on 447 CVCs (internal jugular vein, 419 CVCs [93.7%]), which accounts for a total of 6,700 CVC days. A comparison of diagnostic criteria and characteristics of CRBSI in the 3SITES trial vs the SECRECY registry is provided in Table 1. In this real-life setting, CVCs were in situ longer and the CRBSI rate and incidence were higher than in the 3SITES trial. In the SECRECY registry, median CRBSI onset occurred on day 15.5 after CVC insertion, which is much longer than the median time the CVCs were used in situ in the 3SITES trial (ie, 5 days). Thus, the points discussed here may explain the lower CRBSI incidence in the 3SITES trial, and they should be considered when interpreting data on CRBSI in clinical trials.

TABLE 1 Comparison of Diagnostic Criteria and Characteristics of CRBSI

NOTE. CRBSI, central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection; CVC, central venous catheter; CFU, colony-forming units; n/a, not available.

b A CFU cutoff of 15 in semiquantitative culture is the recommended equivalent of a cutoff of 100 in quantitative culture (see Mermel et alReference Mermel, Allon and Bouza 4 and Hentrich et alReference Hentrich, Schalk and Schmidt-Hieber 5 ).

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Financial support: No financial support was provided relevant to this article.

Potential conflicts of interest: Both authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

References

REFERENCES

1. Parienti, JJ, Mongardon, N, Mégarbane, B, et al. Intravascular complications of central venous catheterization by insertion site. N Engl J Med 2015;373:12201229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Vital signs: central line-associated blood stream infections—United States, 2001, 2008, and 2009. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2011;60:243248.Google Scholar
3. Schalk, E, Hanus, L, Färber, J, Fischer, T, Heidel, FH. Prediction of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) in patients with haematologic malignancies using a modified Infection Probability Score (mIPS). Ann Hematol 2015;94:1451–1456.Google Scholar
4. Mermel, LA, Allon, M, Bouza, E, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of intravascular catheter-related infection: 2009 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2009;49:145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Hentrich, M, Schalk, E, Schmidt-Hieber, M, et al. Central venous catheter-related infections in hematology and oncology: 2012 updated guidelines on diagnosis, management and prevention by the Infectious Diseases Working Party of the German Society of Hematology and Medical Oncology. Ann Oncol 2014;25:936947.Google Scholar
6. Pepin, CS, Thom, KA, Sorkin, JD, et al. Risk factors for central line-associated bloodstream infections: a focus on comorbid conditions. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015;36:479481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Schalk, E, Färber, J, Fischer, T, Heidel, FH. Central venous catheter-related bloodstream infections in obese hematologic patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015;36:995996.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

TABLE 1 Comparison of Diagnostic Criteria and Characteristics of CRBSI