Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

Cerrahi yoğun bakım ünitesinde kateter kaynaklı enfeksiyonlar

Catheter related infections in a surgical intensive care uni

Journal Name:

  • Gülhane Tıp Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2008

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author Name
Abstract (2. Language): 
Central venous catheterization is commonly used in critically ill patients and may cause many different complications. The objective of this study was to analyze the incidence of catheter related local infections and bacteremia regarding the use of different catheter port sites in patients followed up postoperatively in the surgical intensive care unit. The patients followed up at our surgical intensive care unit between May 2005 and February 2006 were classified on the basis of anatomic sites of inserted catheter, duration of catheterization and hospitalization, number of lumen of the catheter, duration of total parenteral nutrition, and APACHE and SOFA scores. A total of 101 catheterization procedures were performed to 88 patients. Of these, 79 (81.8%) were juguler catheters, 21 (17%) were subclavian catheters and 1 (1.2%) was peripherally located central catheter. Duration of total catheterization was 542 days for juguler catheters and 193 days for subclavian catheters. Catheter related infection density was statistically significantly higher in juguler catheters when compared to subclavian catheters (p<0.05). Most commonly isolated microorganism from catheter tip cultures of the patients was coagulase-negative staphylococcus. Duration of catheterization and type of catheter insertion site are important risk factors in catheter related infections. In order to minimize the rate of catheter related infections subclavian catheters should be preferred rather than juguler catheters, and preventive measures should be taken in decreasing the incidence of postoperative infections by following the patients closely
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Santral venöz kateterizasyon, durumu kritik hastalarda sıklıkla kullanılmaktadır ve çok farklı komplikasyonlara da yol açabilir. Bu çalışmanın amacı operasyon sonrası cerrahi yoğun bakım ünitesinde takip edilen hastalarda farklı kateter giriş yerleri kullanımı açısından kateter kaynaklı lokal enfeksiyon ve bakteriyemi insidansını analiz etmektir. Mayıs 2005 ile Şubat 2006 tarihleri arasında cerrahi yoğun bakım ünitesinde izlenen hastalar kateter giriş yerleri, yoğun bakım ve kateterizasyon süresi, lümen sayısı, total parenteral nütrisyon süresi ve APACHE ile SOFA skoru açısından sınıflandırıldı. Seksen sekiz hastaya toplam 101 kateter takıldı. Bunlardan 79’u jügüler kateter (%81.8), 21’i subklavyen kateter (%17) ve 1’i perifer lokalizasyonlu santral kateter (%1.2) idi. Kateter kalış süresi jügüler kateter için 542 gün, subklavyen kateter için 193 gündü. Kateter kaynaklı enfeksiyon dansitesi jügüler kateterlerde subklavyen kateterlere göre istatistiksel olarak daha yüksek bulunmuştur (p<0.05). Kateter ucu kültürlerinden en sık izole edilen mikroorganizma 14 hastada koagülaz negatif stafilokok idi. Kateter giriş yeri ve kalış süresi, kateter kaynaklı enfeksiyonlarda önemli bir risk faktörüdür. Kateter kaynaklı enfeksiyonları en aza indirmek için subklavyen kateter, diğer kateter giriş yerlerine göre öncelikle tercih edilmeli ve postoperatif dönemde enfeksiyonların azaltılmasında hastalar yakından takip edilerek önleyici tedbirler mutlaka alınmalıdır.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-cerrahi-yogun-bakim-unitesinde-kateter-kaynakli-enfeksiyonlar.pdf
  • 3
158-163
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Wishnewski N, Kampf G, Gastmeier P, et al. Prevalence
of primary bloodstream infection in representative
German hospitals and their association with central
and peripheral vascular catheters. Zentralbl Bakteriol
1998; 287: 93-103.
2. O’grady NP, Alexander M, Dellinger EP, et al. Guidelines
for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related
infection. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
MMWR Recomm Rep 2002; 51: 1-29.
3. Raad I, Bodey GP. Infectious complications of indwelling
vascular catheters. Clin Infect Dis 1992; 15: 197-208.
4. Lorente L, Henry C, Martin M, Jimenez A, Mora
M. Central venous catheter-related infection in a
prospective and observational study of 2595 catheters.
Crit Care 2005; 9: 631-635.
5. Fraenkel DJ, Rickard C, Lipman J. Can we achieve
consensus on central venous catheter-related infections?
Anaesth Intens Care 2000; 28: 475-490.
6. Dimick JB, Pelz RK, Consunji R, Swoboda SM, Hendrix
CW, Lipsett PA. Increased resource use associates with
catheter related bloodstream infection in surgical
intensive care unit. Arch Surg 2001; 136: 229-234.
7. Maki DG, Ringer M. Risk factors for infusion related
phlebitis with small peripheral venous catheters. A
randomized controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1991;
114: 845-854.
8. Zürcher M, Tramer M, Walder B. Colonization and
bloodstream infection with single-versus multi-lumen
central venous catheters: a quantitative systematic
review. Anesth Analg 2004; 99: 177-182.
9. Garner JS, Jarvis WR, Emori TG, Hotan TC, Hughes JM.
CDC definitions for nosocomial infections 1988. Am J
Infect Control 1988; 16: 128-140.
10. Pinilla JC, Ross DC, Martin T, Crump H. Study of
the incidence of intravascular catheter infection and
associated septicaemia in critically ill patients. Crit Care
Med 1983; 11: 21-25.
11. Damen J, Verhoef J, Bolton DT, Middleton NG, Van
der Tweer I, Jonge KD. Microbiologic risk of invasive
hemodynamic monitoring in patients undergoing openheart operation. Crit Care Med 1985; 13: 548-555.
12. Merrer J, De Jonghe B, Golliot F, Lefrant JY, Raffy B,
Barre E. Complications of femoral and subclavian
venous catheterization in critically ill patients. JAMA
2001; 286: 700-707.
13. Goetz AM, Wagener MM, Miller JM, Muder RR. Risk of
infection due to central venous catheters: effect of site
of placement and catheter type. Infect Control Hosp
Epidemiol 1988; 19: 842-845.
14. The National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance
System. National nosocomial infection surveillance
(NNIS) system report, data summary from October
1986–April 1998; issued June 1998. Am J Infect Control
1998; 26: 522-533.
15. Moro ML, Vigano EF, Cozzi A. Risk factors for central
venous catheter related infections in surgical and
intensive care units. The Central Venous Catheter
Related Infections Study Group. Infect Control Hosp
Epidemiol 1994; 15: 253-264.
16. Richet H, Hubert B, Nitenberg G, et al. Prospective
multicenter study of vascular-catheter-related
complications and risk factors for positive central
catheter culture in intensive care unit patients. J Clin
Microbiol 1990; 28: 2520-2525.
17. Mermel LA, McCormick RD, Springman SR, Maki DG.
The pathogenesis and epidemiology of catheter-related
infection with pulmonary artery Swan-Ganz catheters:
a prospective study utilizing molecular subtyping. Am J
Med 1991; 91: 197s-205s.
18. Heard SO, Wagle M, Vijayakumar E, et al. Influence
of triple-lumen central venous catheters coated with
clorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine on the incidence
of catheter-related bacteremia. Arch Intern Med 1998;
158: 81-87.
19. Mantese VA, German DS, Kaminski DL, Herrmann VM.
Colonization and sepsis from triple-lumen catheters in
critically ill patients. Am J Surg 1987; 154: 597-601.
20. Clark-Christoff N, Watters VA, Sparks W, et al. Use of
triple-lumen subclavian catheters for administration of
total parenteral nutrition. J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1992;
16: 403-407.
21. Farkas JC, Liu N, Bleriot JP, et al. Single-versus triplelumen central catheter-related sepsis: a prospective
randomized study in a critically ill population. Am J
Med 1992; 93: 277-282.
22. Grupta S, Batra YK, Puri GD, et al. Infection rates in
single- and double-lumen central venous catheters
in critically ill patients. Natl Med J India 1995; 8:
114-117.
23. Johnson BH, Rypins EB. Single-lumen vs double-lumen
catheters for total parenteral nutrition. A randomized,
prospective trial. Arch Surg 1990; 123: 990-992.
24. McCarthy Mc, Shives JK, Robison RJ, et al. Prospective
evaluation of single and triple lumen catheters in total
parenteral nutrition. J Parent Enteral Nutr 1987; 11:
259-262.
25. Yeung C, May J, Hughes R. Infection rate for single vs
triple lumen subclavian catheters. Infect Control Hosp
Epidemiol 1998; 9: 154-158.Cilt 50 • Sayı 3 Kateter kaynaklı enfeksiyonlar • 163
26. Dimick JB, Swoboda S, Talamini MA, Pelz RK, Hendrix
CW, Lipsett PA. Risk of colonization of central venous
catheters: catheters for total parenteral nutrition vs
other catheters. Am J Crit Care 2003; 12: 328-335.
27. Brun-Buisson C, Abrouk F, Legrand P, Huet Y, Larabi S,
Rapin M. Diagnosis of central venous catheter-related
sepsis. Critical level of quantitative tip cultures. Arch
Intern Med 1987; 147: 873-877.
28. Cook D, Randolph A, Kernerman P, et al. Central venous
catheter replacement strategies: a systematic review of
the literature. Crit Care Med 1997; 25: 1417-1424.
29. Coob DK, High KP, Sawyer RG, et al. A controlled
trial of scheduled replacement of central venous and
pulmonary-artery catheters. N Engl J Med 1992; 327:
1062-1068.
30. Uldall PR, Merchant N, Woods F, Yarworski U, Vas S.
Changing subclavian haemodialysis cannulas to reduce
infection. Lancet 1981; 1: 1373.
31. Charalambous C, Swoboda SM, Dick J, Perl T, Lipsett
PA. Risk factors and clinical impact of central line
infections in the surgical intensive care unit. Arch Surg
1998; 133: 1241-1246.
32. Sherertz RJ, Raad II, Belani A, et al. Three-year experience
with sonicated vascular catheter cultures in a clinical
microbiology laboratory. J Clin Microbiol 1990; 28:
76-82.
33. Zürcher M, Tramèr MR, Walder B. Colonization and
bloodstream infection with single-versus multi-lumen
central venous catheters: a quantitative systematic
review. Anesth Analg 2004; 99: 177-182.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com