To save content items to your account,
please 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 account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
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 saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Background: Oncology patients are at high risk for bloodstream infection (BSI) due to immunosuppression and frequent use of central venous catheters. Surveillance in this population is largely relegated to inpatient settings and limited data are available describing community burden. We evaluated rates of BSI, clinic or emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalizations in a large cohort of oncology outpatients with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). Methods: In this prospective, observational study, we followed a convenience sample of adults (age>18) with PICCs at a large academic outpatient oncology clinic for 35 months between July 2015 and November 2018. We assessed demographics, malignancy type, PICC insertion and removal dates, history of prior PICC, and line duration. Outcomes included BSI events (defined as >1 positive blood cultures or >2 positive blood cultures if coagulase-negative Staphylococcus), ED visits (without hospitalization), and unplanned hospitalizations (excluding scheduled chemotherapy hospitalizations). We used χ2 analyses to compare the frequency of categorical outcomes, and we used unpaired t tests to assess differences in means of continuous variable in hematologic versus solid-tumor malignancy patients. We used generalized linear mixed-effects models to assess differences in BSI (clustered by patient) separately for gram-positive and gram-negative BSI outcomes. Results: Among 478 patients with 658 unique PICC lines and 64,190 line days, 271 patients (413 lines) had hematologic malignancy and 207 patients (232 lines) had solid-tumor malignancy. Cohort characteristics and outcomes stratified by malignancy type are shown in Table 1. Compared to those with hematologic malignancy, solid-tumor patients were older, had 47% fewer clinic visits, and had 32% lower frequency of prior PICC lines. Overall, there were 75 BSI events (12%; 1.2 per 1,000 catheter days). We detected no significant difference in BSI rates when comparing solid-tumor versus hematologic malignancies (P = 0.20); BSIs with gram-positive pathogen were 69% higher in patients with solid tumors. Gram-negative BSIs were 41% higher in patients with hematologic malignancy. Solid-tumor malignancy was associated with 4.5-fold higher odds of developing BSI with gram-positive pathogen (OR, 4.48; 95% CI, 1.60–12.60; P = .005) compared to those with hematologic malignancy, after adjusting for age, sex, history of prior PICC, and line duration. Differences in gram-negative BSI were not significant on multivariate analysis. Conclusions: The burden of all-cause BSIs in cancer clinic adults with PICC lines was 12% or 1.2 per 1,000 catheter days, as high as nationally reported inpatient BSI rates. Higher risk of gram-positive BSIs in solid-tumor patients suggests the need for targeted infection prevention activities in this population, such as improvements in central-line monitoring, outpatient care, and maintenance of lines and/or dressings, as well as chlorhexidine bathing to reduce skin bioburden.
Background: Greater than 10% of hospitalized MRSA carriers experience serious MRSA infection in the year following discharge. Prevention opportunities have primarily focused on hospital stays; however postdischarge interventions have the potential to reduce morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. The CLEAR trial found a 30% hazard reduction in postdischarge MRSA infections among patients who had inpatient MRSA cultures and were given postdischarge decolonization (5 days twice-a-month for 6 months) relative to hygiene education alone. We conducted a cost analysis of the CLEAR intervention to quantify the economic implications and understand the value of adopting this MRSA decolonization strategy. Methods: We constructed a decision model to estimate the one-year healthcare utilization and costs associated with postdischarge decolonization relative to hygiene education. Trial results for MRSA infection risk and downstream outcomes (including outpatient and emergency room visits, hospitalizations, related nursing home stays, and postdischarge antibiotics) were used to parameterize the model. Other medical care and prescription drug costs were based on Medicare Fee Schedules, Red Book and the literature. Patient out-of-pocket costs and time costs associated with subsequent infections were from a survey of trial participants experiencing infection (n=405). All costs were reported in 2019 US dollars. The analysis was conducted using healthcare system and societal perspectives. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on key parameters. Results: Among a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 hospitalized MRSA carriers, we estimated that a postdischarge decolonization intervention versus hygiene education would result in at least 36 fewer subsequent MRSA infections (130 vs 93 of 1,000, respectively) and >40 fewer MRSA-attributable healthcare events including 32 hospitalizations and 6 postdischarge nursing home visits over the course of a year. Assuming an intervention cost of $185 per individual, the program would result in an overall cost savings of $469,000 per 1,000 MRSA carriers undergoing decolonization. This translates to an overall savings of $13,200 per infection averted and $9,000 per infection averted from the healthcare system perspective. Even assuming a lower infection rate or a less effective intervention (15% reduction in infections vs 30% in the CLEAR trial), or a more expensive (up to $653 per patient) intervention, a decolonization program would still result in cost-savings for society, the healthcare system and patients. Conclusions: In addition to health benefits of preventing infections, postdischarge decolonization of MRSA carriers yields substantial savings to society and the healthcare system. Future recommendations for reducing postdischarge MRSA-related disease among MRSA carriers should consider routine decolonization at hospital discharge.
Funding: This study was supported by a grant from the AHRQ Healthcare-Associated Infections Program (R01HS019388) and by the University of California Irvine Institute for Clinical and Translational Science, which was funded by a grant from the NIH Clinical and Translational Sciences Award program (UL1 TR000153).
Disclosures: Dr. Huang reports conducting clinical studies in which participating nursing homes and hospitals received donated products from Stryker (Sage Products), Mölnlycke, 3M, Clorox, Xttrium Laboratories, and Medline. Ms. Singh reports conducting clinical studies in which participating nursing homes and hospitals received donated products from Stryker (Sage Products), 3M, Clorox, Xttrium Laboratories, and Medline. Dr. Rashid, conducting clinical studies in which participating nursing homes and hospitals received donated products from Stryker(Sage Products), Clorox, and Medline. Dr. McKinnell reports receiving grant support to his institution from Melinta Therapeutics, and fees for serving as a research investigator from Lightship, conducting clinical studies in which participating nursing homes and hospitals received donated products from Stryker (Sage Products), 3M, Clorox, Xttrium Laboratories and Medline, and serving as cofounder of Expert Stewardship. Dr. Miller reports receiving grant support from Gilead Sciences, Merck, Abbott, Cepheid, Genentech, Atox Bio, and Paratek Pharmaceuticals, grant support and fees for serving on an advisory board from Achaogen and grant support, consulting fees, and fees for serving on an advisory board from Tetraphase and conducting clinical studies in which participating nursing homes and hospitals received donated products from Stryker (Sage Products), 3M, Clorox, Xttrium Laboratories, and Medline.
To assess the impact of a newly developed Central-Line Insertion Site Assessment (CLISA) score on the incidence of local inflammation or infection for CLABSI prevention.
A pre- and postintervention, quasi-experimental quality improvement study.
Setting and participants:
Adult inpatients with central venous catheters (CVCs) hospitalized in an intensive care unit or oncology ward at a large academic medical center.
We evaluated CLISA score impact on insertion site inflammation and infection (CLISA score of 2 or 3) incidence in the baseline period (June 2014–January 2015) and the intervention period (April 2015–October 2017) using interrupted times series and generalized linear mixed-effects multivariable analyses. These were run separately for days-to-line removal from identification of a CLISA score of 2 or 3. CLISA score interrater reliability and photo quiz results were evaluated.
Among 6,957 CVCs assessed 40,846 times, percentage of lines with CLISA score of 2 or 3 in the baseline and intervention periods decreased by 78.2% (from 22.0% to 4.7%), with a significant immediate decrease in the time-series analysis (P < .001). According to the multivariable regression, the intervention was associated with lower percentage of lines with a CLISA score of 2 or 3, after adjusting for age, gender, CVC body location, and hospital unit (odds ratio, 0.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.06–0.34; P < .001). According to the multivariate regression, days to removal of lines with CLISA score of 2 or 3 was 3.19 days faster after the intervention (P < .001). Also, line dwell time decreased 37.1% from a mean of 14 days (standard deviation [SD], 10.6) to 8.8 days (SD, 9.0) (P < .001). Device utilization ratios decreased 9% from 0.64 (SD, 0.08) to 0.58 (SD, 0.06) (P = .039).
The CLISA score creates a common language for assessing line infection risk and successfully promotes high compliance with best practices in timely line removal.
We performed systematic review on 40 paired hospital and nursing home charts from a clinical trial to evaluate the fidelity of transitions of care among those discharged on antibiotics. We found that 30% of transitions included an inappropriate change to the patient’s antibiotic plan of care.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.