A survey of 53 university and community hospitals revealed that 73% of the institutions had no standard policy for the replacement of triple-lumen catheters (TLCs). Since the mainte nance of a TLC in place for a prolonged period may lead to infectious complications, it appeared warranted that standards of management be developed. A decision-tree model was constructed for evaluating the optimal time for changing a TLC that would minimize infection. Cost estimates and health effects at three-, five-, and ten-day change intervals were considered for catheter insertion and complications resulting from such insertion. The results suggested that prophylactic catheter changes should occur no later than every five days, provided that there are no signs of infection. However, sensitivity analysis of several variables suggested that individual institutions should establish policy timing changes based upon careful interpretation of their own data. A model was developed to assist in determining the optimal time to change a TLC based upon such data. Key words: triple-lumen catheter; catheter-related infection; sepsis; decision analysis. (Med Decis Making 1995;15:138-142)
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Gil RT, Kruse JA, Thill-Baharozian MC, Carlson RWTriple- vs single-lumen central venous catheters. A prospective study in a critically ill populationArch Intern Med.1989;149:1139-43.
2.
Smits H., Freedman LRProlonged venous catheterization as a cause of sepsis. N Engl J Med. 1967;276:1229-33.
3.
Bentley DW, Lepper MHSepticemia related to indwellng venous catheter. JAMA. 1968;206:1749-52.
4.
Fuchs PCIndwelling intravenous polyethylene catheters. Factors influencing the risk of microbial colonization and sepsis. JAMA. 1971;216:1447-50.
Mogensen JV, Frederiksen W., Jensen JKSubclavian vein catheterization and infection. A bacteriological study of 130 catheter insertions. Scand J Infect Uis. 1972;4:31-6.
7.
Hoshal VLIntravenous catheters and infection. Surg Clin North Am. 1972;52:1407-17.
8.
Ponce de Leon S., Critchley S., Wenzel RPPolymicrobial bloodstream infections related to prolonged vascular catheterization. Crit Care Med. 1984;12:856-9.
9.
Moran JM, Atwood RP, Howe MIA clinical and bacteriologic study of infections associated with venous cutdowns . N Engl J Med. 1965;272:554-60.
10.
Snyder RH, Archer FJ, Endy T., et al.Catheter infection. A comparison of two catheter maintenance techniques. Ann Surg. 1988;208:651-3.
11.
Gregory JA, Schiller WRSubclavian catheter changes every third day in high risk patients. Am Surg. 1985;51:534-6.
12.
Ryan JA, Abel HM, Abbott WM, et al.Catheter complications in total parenteral nutrition. A prospective study of 200 consecutive patients. N Engl J Med. 1974;290:757-61.
13.
Sanders RA, Sheldon GFSeptic complications of total parenteral nutrition. A five year experience . Am J Surg. 1976;132:214-20.
14.
Eyer S., Brummitt C., Crossley K., Siegel R., Cerra F.Catheter-related sepsis: prospective, randomized study of three methods of long-term catheter maintenance. Crit Care Med. 1990;18:1073-9.
15.
Norwood S., Ruby A., Civetta J., Cortes V.Catheter-related infections and associated septicemia [see comments]Chest. 1991;99:968-75.
Richet H., Hubert B., Nitemberg G., et al.Prospective multicenter study of vascular-catheter-related complications and risk factors for positive central-catheter cultures in intensive care unit patients. J Clin Microbiol.1990;282520-5.
18.
Haad II, Bodey GPInfectious complications of indwelling vascular catheters. Clin Infect Dis. 1992;15:197-208.
19.
McCarthy MC , Shives JK, Robison RJ, Broadie TAProspective evaluation of single and triple lumen catheters in total parenteral nutrition. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1987;11:259-62.
20.
Weinstein MP , Reller LB, Murphy JR, Lichtenstein KAThe clinical significance of positive blood cultures: a comprehensive analysis of 500 episodes of bacteremia and fungemia in adults. 1. Laboratory and epidemiologic observations. Rev Infect Dis. 1983;5:35-70.
21.
Collignon PJ , Munro R., Sorrell TCSystemic sepsis and intravenous devices. A prospective surveyMed J Aust. 1984;141:345-8.
22.
Horowitz HW , Dworkin BM, Savino JA, Byrne DW, Pecora NACentral catheter-related infections: comparison of pulmonary artery catheters and triple lumen catheters for the delivery of hyperalimentation in a critical care setting. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1990;14:588-92.
23.
Sitzmann JV , Townsend TH, Siler MC, Bartlett JGSeptic and technical complications of central venous catheterization. A prospective study of 200 consecutive patients. Ann Surg.1985;202:766-70.
24.
Yeung C., May J., Huges R.Infection rate for single lumen v triple lumen subclavian cathetersInfect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1988;9:154-8.
25.
Bernard RW, Stahl WM, Chase RMSubclavian vein catheterizations: a prospective study. II. Infectious complications . Ann Surg. 1971;173:191-200.
26.
Conners A, Department of Medicine, MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio. Personal communication, 1992.
27.
Pauker SG, Sonnenberg FA, Kassirer JPDecision Maker 6.0 (computer software)Boston: New England Medical Center, 1988.
28.
St Anthony's DRG Working Guidebook. Alexandria : St. Anthony Publishing, 1993: x-xxxix.
29.
Maki DG, Ringer M.Risk factors for infusion-related phlebitis with small peripheral venous catheters. A randomized controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 1991;114:845-54.
30.
Hilton E., Haslett TM, Borenstein MT, Tucci V., Isenberg HD, Singer C.Central catheter infections: single- versus triple-lumen catheters. Influence of guide wires on infection rates when used for replacement of catheters [see comments]Am J Med. 1988;84:667-72.
31.
Stenzel JP, Green TP, Fuhrman BP, Carlson PE, Marchessault RPPercutaneous central venous catheterization in a pediatric intensive care unit: a survival analysis of complications [see comments]Crit Care Med. 1989;17:984-8.
32.
Hampton AASherertz RJVascular-access infections in hospitalized patients. Surg Clin North Am. 1988;68:57-71.
