Central line bundle for prevention of central line–associated bloodstream infection for totally implantable venous access devices (ports) in pediatric cancer patients

Abstract

Objective:

The clinical impact of central line bundle programs for central line–associated bloodstream infections has been well demonstrated in intensive care units. However, the experience of central line bundle programs in totally implantable venous access devices (ports) in pediatric-hematology patients was limited.

Methods:

A retrospective study was designed to compare and evaluate the clinical impact of implementing a central line bundle for a 2-year 5-month period, including 10 months of prebundle period, 11 months of central line bundle (that includes needleless split-septum devices), and finally 8 months of central line bundle period in which single-use prefilled flushing devices were added to the previous central line bundle.

Results:

During the prebundle period, the rate of 14.5 central line–associated bloodstream infections per 1000 CL-days had decreased to 5.49 CLABSIs per 1000 CL-days in the first bundle period. The incidence rate ratio with these two groups was 0.379, indicating a relative risk reduction of 62% (p = 0.005). By the addition of single-use prefilled flushing devices to the first bundle program, the central line–associated bloodstream infection rate decreased to 2.63 per 1000 CL-days. Port removal rate due to central line–associated bloodstream infections was 0.46 per 1000 catheter days in the bundle period, which was significantly lower than in the prebundle period in which port removal rate was 4.5 per 1000 catheter days (p < 0.001).

Conclusion:

Central line bundle programs were found to be effective in decreasing central line–associated bloodstream infection rates, improving patients’ quality of life by preventing ports removal due in pediatric cancer patients.

Keywords

Central line bundle totally implantable venous access devices port split-septum single-use prefilled flushing device pediatric hematology-oncology patients

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Niederhuber

Ensminger

Gyves

et al . Totally implanted venous and arterial access system to replace external catheters in cancer treatment. Surgery 1982; 92: 706–712.

Bustos

Aguinaga

Carmona-Torre

et al . Long-term catheterization: current approaches in the diagnosis and treatment of port-related infections. Infect Drug Resist 2014; 7: 25–35.

Orgel

Pastor

et al . Infectious morbidity by catheter type in neutropenic children with cancer. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2014; 33(3): 263–266.

Severien

Nelson

. Frequency of infections associated with implanted systems vs cuffed, tunneled silastic venous catheters in patients with acute leukemia. Am J Dis Child 1991; 145: 1433–1438.

Adler

Yaniv

Solter

et al . Catheter-associated bloodstream infections in pediatric hematology-oncology patients: factors associated with catheter removal and recurrence. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2006; 28: 23–28.

Barbetakis

Asteriou

Kleontas

et al . Totally implantable central venous access ports. Analysis of 700 cases. J Surg Oncol 2011; 104: 654–656.

Chang

Tsai

Huang

et al . Evaluation of infectious complications of the implantable venous access system in a general oncologic population. Am J Infect Control 2003; 31: 34–39.

Groeger

Lucas

Thaler

et al . Infectious morbidity associated with long-term use of venous access devices in patients with cancer. Ann Intern Med 1993; 119: 1168–1174.

Wolosker

Yazbek

Nishinari

et al . Totally implantable venous catheters for chemotherapy: experience in 500 patients. Sao Paulo Med J 2004; 122(4): 147–151.

10.

Hsu

Chang

Tsai

et al . Port type is a possible risk factor for implantable venous access port-related bloodstream infections and no sign of local infection predicts the growth of gram-negative bacilli. World J Surg Oncol 2015; 13: 288.

11.

Simon

Furtwängler

Graf

et al . Surveillance of bloodstream infections in pediatric cancer centers—what have we learned and how do we move on? GMS Hyg Infect Control 2016; 11: Doc11.

12.

Pronovost

Needham

Berenholtz

et al . An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 2725–2732.

13.

Coopersmith

Rebmann

Zack

et al . Effect of an education program on decreasing catheter-related bloodstream infections in the surgical intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 2002; 30: 59–64.

14.

Merrer

De Jonghe

Golliot

et al . Complications of femoral and subclavian venous catheterization in critically ill patients: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2001; 286: 700–707.

15.

Raad II Hohn

Gilbreath

et al . Prevention of central venous catheter-related infections by using maximal sterile barrier precautions during insertion. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994; 15: 231–238.

16.

Devrim

Yaşar

İşgüder

et al . Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of a central line bundle including split-septum and single-use prefilled flushing devices on central line-associated bloodstream infection rates in a pediatric intensive care unit. Am J Infect Control 2016; 44: e125–e128.

17.

Simon

Graf

Furtwängler

. Results of a multicentre survey evaluating clinical practice of port and broviac management in paediatric oncology. Klin Padiatr 2013; 225(3): 145–151.

18.

Rinke

Chen

Bundy

et al . Implementation of a central line maintenance care bundle in hospitalized pediatric oncology patients. Pediatrics 2012; 130(4): e996–e1004.

19.

Choi

Chang

Hanauer

et al . Rapid reduction of central line infections in hospitalized pediatric oncology patients through simple quality improvement methods. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2013; 60(2): 262–269.

20.

Barrell

Covington

Bhatia

et al . Preventive strategies for central line-associated bloodstream infections in pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Am J Infect Control 2012; 40(5): 434–439.

21.

Furtwängler

Laux

Graf

et al . Impact of a modified broviac maintenance care bundle on bloodstream infections in paediatric cancer patients. GMS Hyg Infect Control 2015; 10: Doc15.

22.

Pearson

Hierholzer

Jr Garner

et al . Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular device-related infections. Am J Infect Control 1996; 24: 262–293.

23.

Garner

Jarvis

Emori

et al . CDC definitions for nosocomial infections. Am J Infect Control 1988; 16: 128–140.

24.

O’Grady

Alexander

Burns

et al . Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Am J Infect Control 2011; 39(Suppl. 1): S1–S34.

25.

Pearson

. Guideline for prevention of intravascular device-related infections. Hospital infection control practices advisory committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996; vol 17: 438–473.

26.

Mermel

Allon

Bouza

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: 1–45.

27.

Wilson

Weinstein

Reller

. Automated blood culture systems. Clin Lab Med 1994; 14: 149–169.

28.

Clinical and Laboratory Standards Insitute Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: Nineteenth Informational Supplement 2009; M100-S19. Wayne, PA: CLSI.

29.

Bobenchik

Hindler

Giltner

et al . Performance of Vitek 2 for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Staphylococcus spp. and Enterococcus spp. J Clin Microbiol 2014; 52: 392–397.

30.

Quesada

Giménez

Molinos

et al . Performance of VITEK-2 compact and overnight MicroScan panels for direct identification and susceptibility testing of Gram-negative bacilli from positive FAN BacT/ALERT blood culture bottles. Clin Microbiol Infect 2010; 16: 137–140.

31.

Valenza

Strasen

Schäfer

et al . Evaluation of new colorimetric vitek 2 yeast identification card by use of different source media. J Clin Microbiol 2008; 46: 3784–3787.

32.

Miller

Niedner

Huskins

et al . Reducing PICU central line–associated bloodstream infections: 3-year results. Pediatrics 2011; 128: e1077–1083.

33.

Rosenthal

VD1

Udwadia

Kumar

et al . Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of split-septum and single-use prefilled flushing device vs 3-way stopcock on central line-associated bloodstream infection rates in India: a randomized clinical trial conducted by the International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC). Am J Infect Control 2015; 43: 1040–1045.

34.

Infusion Nurses Society. Infusion nursing standards of practice. J Infus Nurs 2016; 39(1 Suppl.): S1–S158.

35.

Calop

Bosson

Croize

et al . Maintenance of peripheral and central intravenous infusion devices by 0.9% sodium chloride with or without heparin as a potential source of catheter microbial contamination. J Hosp Infect 2000; 46: 161–162.

36.

Trautmann

Zauser

Wiedeck

. Bacterial colonisation and endotoxin contamination of intravenous infusion fluids. J Hosp Infect 1997; 37: 225–223.

37.

Stucki

Sautter

Favet

et al . Microbial contamination of syringes during preparation: the direct influence of environmental cleanliness and risk manipulations on end-product quality. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2009; 66: 2032–2036.

38.

CDC. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections, 2011, https://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/pdf/guidelines/bsi-guidelines-2011.pdf (29 November 2016).

39.

Kelly

Conway

Wirth

et al . Moving CLABSI prevention beyond the intensive care unit: risk factors in pediatric oncology patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011; 32: 1079–1085.

40.

Celebi

Sezgin

Cakır

et al . Catheter-associated bloodstream infections in pediatric hematology-oncology patients. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2013; 30: 187–194.

41.

Yazıcı

Akyüz

Yalçın

et al . Infectious complications and conservative treatment of totally implantable venous access devices in children with cancer. Turk J Pediatr 2013; 55: 164–171.