To avoid rhythm disturbance, sutures for ventricular septal defect closure have been traditionally placed 2∼5 mm or more away from the edge of the ventricular septal defect. However, the traditional suturing method appears to induce right bundle branch block and tricuspid valve regurgitation after ventricular septal defect closure more than our alternative technique, shallow suturing just at the edge of the ventricular septal defect (shallower bites at the postero-inferior margin). We aimed to verify our clinical experience of perimembranous ventricular septal defect repair.

The alternative shallow suturing method has been applied since 2003 at our institution. We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of 556 isolated perimembranous ventricular septal defect patients who underwent surgical closure from 2000 to 2019. We investigated the postoperative occurrence of right bundle branch block or progression of tricuspid regurgitation and analysed risk factors for right bundle branch block and tricuspid regurgitation.

Traditional suturing method (Group T) was used in 374 cases (66.8%), and alternative suturing method (Group A) was used in 186 cases (33.2%). The right bundle branch block occurred more frequently in Group T (39.6%) than in Group A (14.9%). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, Group T and patch material were significant risk factors for late right bundle branch block. More patients with progression of tricuspid regurgitation were found in Group T.

Shallow suturing just at the edge of the ventricular septal defect may reduce the rate of right bundle branch block occurrence and tricuspid regurgitation progression without other complications.

Early replacement of a new central venous catheter (CVC) may pose a risk of persistent or recurrent infection in patients with a catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI). We evaluated the clinical impact of early CVC reinsertion after catheter removal in patients with CRBSIs.

We conducted a retrospective chart review of adult patients with confirmed CRBSIs in 2 tertiary-care hospitals over a 7-year period.

To treat their infections, 316 patients with CRBSIs underwent CVC removal. Among them, 130 (41.1%) underwent early CVC reinsertion (≤3 days after CVC removal), 39 (12.4%) underwent delayed reinsertion (>3 days), and 147 (46.5%) did not undergo CVC reinsertion. There were no differences in baseline characteristics among the 3 groups, except for nontunneled CVC, presence of septic shock, and reason for CVC reinsertion. The rate of persistent CRBSI in the early CVC reinsertion group (22.3%) was higher than that in the no CVC reinsertion group (7.5%; P = .002) but was similar to that in the delayed CVC reinsertion group (17.9%; P > .99). The other clinical outcomes did not differ among the 3 groups, including rates of 30-day mortality, complicated infection, and recurrence. After controlling for several confounding factors, early CVC reinsertion was not significantly associated with persistent CRBSI (OR, 1.59; P = .35) or 30-day mortality compared with delayed CVC reinsertion (OR, 0.81; P = .68).

Early CVC reinsertion in the setting of CRBSI may be safe. Replacement of a new CVC should not be delayed in patients who still require a CVC for ongoing management.