Attributable cost and length of stay for central line-associated bloodstream infections. (Vats)

Posted on June 16, 2014 by E. Lawson

Goudie A, Dynan L, Brady PW, Rettiganti M. Attributable cost and length of stay for central line-associated bloodstream infections. Pediatrics. 2014 Jun;133(6):e1525-32.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) are common types of hospital-acquired infections associated with high morbidity. Little is known about the attributable cost and length of stay (LOS) of CLABSI in pediatric inpatient settings. We determined the cost and LOS attributable to pediatric CLABSI from 2008 through 2011.

METHODS: A propensity score-matched case-control study was performed. Children <18 years with inpatient discharges in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample databases from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project from 2008 to 2011 were included. Discharges with CLABSI were matched to those without CLABSI by age, year, and high dimensional propensity score (obtained from a logistic regression of CLABSI status on patient characteristics and the presence or absence of 262 individual clinical classification software diagnoses). Our main outcome measures were estimated costs obtained from cost-to-charge ratios and LOS for pediatric discharges.

RESULTS: The mean attributable cost and LOS between matched CLABSI cases (1339) and non-CLABSI controls (2678) was $55 646 (2011 dollars) and 19 days, respectively. Between 2008 and 2011, the rate of pediatric CLABSI declined from 1.08 to 0.60 per 1000 (P < .001). Estimates of mean costs of treating patients with CLABSI declined from $111 852 to $98 621 (11.8%; P < .001) over this period, but cost of treating matched non-CLABSI patients remained constant at ∼$48 000.

CONCLUSIONS: Despite significant improvement in rates, CLABSI remains a burden on patients, families, and payers. Continued attention to CLABSI-prevention initiatives and lower-cost CLABSI care management strategies to support high-value pediatric care delivery is warranted.

Full-text for Children’s and Emory users.

Arterial catheters as a source of bloodstream infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (Singh)

Posted on June 16, 2014 by E. Lawson

O’Horo JC, Maki DG, Krupp AE, Safdar N. Arterial catheters as a source of
bloodstream infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis*. Crit Care Med.
2014 Jun;42(6):1334-9.

OBJECTIVE: Catheter-related bloodstream infections are associated with significant costs and adverse consequences. Arterial catheters are commonly used in the critical care setting and are among the most heavily manipulated vascular access devices. We sought to evaluate the prevalence of arterial catheter-related bloodstream infection.

DATA SOURCES: PubMed, CinAHL, EMBASE, and Web of Science.

STUDY SELECTION: Included studies reported prevalence rate of catheter-related bloodstream infection for arterial catheters used for critical illness or postoperative monitoring. For the purposes of this study, catheter-related bloodstream infection was defined as positive blood culture collected from an arterial catheter and from the periphery with the same organism in a patient demonstrating systemic signs of sepsis.

DATA EXTRACTION: The study population, site of insertion, antiseptic preparation, catheter days, and prevalence of catheter-related bloodstream infection were abstracted. When data were not available, authors were contacted for further information.

DATA SYNTHESIS: Forty-nine studies met criteria including 222 cases of arterial catheter-related bloodstream infection in 30,841 catheters. Pooled incidence was 3.40/1,000 catheters or 0.96/1,000 catheter days. Prevalence was considerably higher in the subgroup of studies that cultured all catheters (1.26/1,000 catheter days) compared with those studies that cultured only when the arterial catheter was suspected as the source for the catheter-related bloodstream infection (0.70/1,000 catheter days). Pooled data also found a significantly increased risk of infection for femoral site of insertion compared with radial artery for arterial catheter placement (relative risk, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.32-2.84; p = 0.001)

CONCLUSIONS:: Arterial catheters are an underrecognized cause of catheter-related bloodstream infection. Pooled incidence when catheters were systematically cultured and correlated to blood culture results indicated a substantial burden of arterial catheter-related bloodstream infection. Selection of a radial site over a femoral site will help reduce the risk of arterial catheter-related bloodstream infection. Future studies should evaluate technologies applied to preventing central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection to arterial catheters as well.

Full-text for Children’s and Emory users.

Central or peripheral catheters for initial venous access of ICU patients: a randomized controlled trial. (Teppa)

Posted on September 18, 2013 by E. Lawson

Ricard JD, Salomon L, Boyer A, et al. Central or Peripheral Catheters for Initial Venous Access of ICU Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Crit Care Med. 2013 Sep;41(9):2108-2115.

OBJECTIVES: The vast majority of ICU patients require some form of venous access. There are no evidenced-based guidelines concerning the use of either central or peripheral venous catheters, despite very different complications. It remains unknown which to insert in ICU patients. We investigated the rate of catheter-related insertion or maintenance complications in two strategies: one favoring the central venous catheters and the other peripheral venous catheters.

DESIGN: Multicenter, controlled, parallel-group, open-label randomized trial.

SETTING: Three French ICUs.

PATIENTS: Adult ICU patients with equal central or peripheral venous access requirement.

INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to receive central venous catheters or peripheral venous catheters as initial venous access.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The primary endpoint was the rate of major catheter-related complications within 28 days. Secondary endpoints were the rate of minor catheter-related complications and a composite score-assessing staff utilization and time spent to manage catheter insertions. Analysis was intention to treat. We randomly assigned 135 patients to receive a central venous catheter and 128 patients to receive a peripheral venous catheter. Major catheter-related complications were greater in the peripheral venous catheter than in the central venous catheter group (133 vs 87, respectively, p = 0.02) although none of those was life threatening. Minor catheter-related complications were 201 with central venous catheters and 248 with peripheral venous catheters (p = 0.06). 46% (60/128) patients were managed throughout their ICU stay with peripheral venous catheters only. There were significantly more peripheral venous catheter-related complications per patient in patients managed solely with peripheral venous catheter than in patients that received peripheral venous catheter and at least one central venous catheter: 1.92 (121/63) versus 1.13 (226/200), p < 0.005. There was no difference in central venous catheter-related complications per patient between patients initially randomized to peripheral venous catheters but subsequently crossed-over to central venous catheter and patients randomized to the central venous catheter group. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival probability did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSION: In ICU patients with equal central or peripheral venous access requirement, central venous catheters should preferably be inserted: a strategy associated with less major complications.

Full-text for Children’s and Emory users.