Skip to main content
Clinical Infectious Diseases: An Official Publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America logoLink to Clinical Infectious Diseases: An Official Publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America
. 2011 May 1;52(9):1087–1099. doi: 10.1093/cid/cir138

Summary of Recommendations: Guidelines for the Prevention of Intravascular Catheter-related Infections

Naomi P O'Grady 1,, Mary Alexander 2, Lillian A Burns 3, E Patchen Dellinger 4, Jeffrey Garland 5, Stephen O Heard 6, Pamela A Lipsett 7, Henry Masur 1, Leonard A Mermel 8, Michele L Pearson 9, Issam I Raad 10, Adrienne G Randolph 11, Mark E Rupp 12, Sanjay Saint 13; the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) (Appendix 1)
PMCID: PMC3106267  PMID: 21467014

These guidelines have been developed for healthcare personnel who insert intravascular catheters and for persons responsible for surveillance and control of infections in hospital, outpatient, and home healthcare settings. This report was prepared by a working group comprising members from professional organizations representing the disciplines of critical care medicine, infectious diseases, healthcare infection control, surgery, anesthesiology, interventional radiology, pulmonary medicine, pediatric medicine, and nursing. The working group was led by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), in collaboration with the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA), Surgical Infection Society (SIS), American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), American Thoracic Society (ATS), American Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists (ASCCA), Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), Infusion Nurses Society (INS), Oncology Nursing Society (ONS), American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN), Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (PIDS), and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and is intended to replace the Guideline for Prevention of Intravascular Catheter-Related Infections published in 2002. These guidelines are intended to provide evidence-based recommendations for preventing intravascular catheter-related infections. Major areas of emphasis include 1) educating and training healthcare personnel who insert and maintain catheters; 2) using maximal sterile barrier precautions during central venous catheter insertion; 3) using a > 0.5% chlorhexidine skin preparation with alcohol for antisepsis; 4) avoiding routine replacement of central venous catheters as a strategy to prevent infection; and 5) using antiseptic/antibiotic impregnated short-term central venous catheters and chlorhexidine impregnated sponge dressings if the rate of infection is not decreasing despite adherence to other strategies (i.e, education and training, maximal sterile barrier precautions, and >0.5% chlorhexidine preparations with alcohol for skin antisepsis). These guidelines also emphasize performance improvement by implementing bundled strategies, and documenting and reporting rates of compliance with all components of the bundle as benchmarks for quality assurance and performance improvement.

As in previous guidelines issued by CDC and HICPAC, each recommendation is categorized on the basis of existing scientific data, theoretical rationale, applicability, and economic impact. The system for categorizing recommendations in this guideline is as follows:

  • Category IA. Strongly recommended for implementation and strongly supported by well-designed experimental, clinical, or epidemiologic studies.

  • Category IB. Strongly recommended for implementation and supported by some experimental, clinical, or epidemiologic studies and a strong theoretical rationale; or an accepted practice (e.g., aseptic technique) supported by limited evidence.

  • Category IC. Required by state or federal regulations, rules, or standards.

  • Category II. Suggested for implementation and supported by suggestive clinical or epidemiologic studies or a theoretical rationale.

  • Unresolved issue. Represents an unresolved issue for which evidence is insufficient or no consensus regarding efficacy exists.

INTRODUCTION

In the United States, 15 million central vascular catheter (CVC) days (i.e, the total number of days of exposure to CVCs among all patients in the selected population during the selected time period) occur in intensive care units (ICUs) each year [1]. Studies have variously addressed catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI). These infections independently increase hospital costs and length of stay [25], but have not generally been shown to independently increase mortality. While 80,000 CRBSIs occur in ICUs each year [1], a total of 250,000 cases of BSIs have been estimated to occur annually, if entire hospitals are assessed [6]. By several analyses, the cost of these infections is substantial, both in terms of morbidity and financial resources expended. To improve patient outcome and to reduce healthcare costs, there is considerable interest by healthcare providers, insurers, regulators, and patient advocates in reducing the incidence of these infections. This effort should be multidisciplinary, involving healthcare professionals who order the insertion and removal of CVCs, those personnel who insert and maintain intravascular catheters, infection control personnel, healthcare managers including the chief executive officer (CEO) and those who allocate resources, and patients who are capable of assisting in the care of their catheters.

The goal of an effective prevention program should be the elimination of CRBSI from all patient-care areas. Although this is challenging, programs have demonstrated success, but sustained elimination requires continued effort. The goal of the measures discussed in this document is to reduce the rate to as low as feasible given the specific patient population being served, the universal presence of microorganisms in the human environment, and the limitations of current strategies and technologies.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Education, Training and Staffing

  1. Educate healthcare personnel regarding the indications for intravascular catheter use, proper procedures for the insertion and maintenance of intravascular catheters, and appropriate infection control measures to prevent intravascular catheter-related infections [715]. Category IA

  2. Periodically assess knowledge of and adherence to guidelines for all personnel involved in the insertion and maintenance of intravascular catheters [715]. Category IA

  3. Designate only trained personnel who demonstrate competence for the insertion and maintenance of peripheral and central intravascular catheters. [1428]. Category IA

  4. Ensure appropriate nursing staff levels in ICUs Observational studies suggest that a higher proportion of “pool nurses” or an elevated patient–to-nurse ratio is associated with CRBSI in ICUs where nurses are managing patients with CVCs [2931]. Category IB

Selection of Catheters and Sites

Peripheral Catheters and Midline Catheters

  1. In adults, use an upper-extremity site for catheter insertion. Replace a catheter inserted in a lower extremity site to an upper extremity site as soon as possible. Category II

  2. In pediatric patients, the upper or lower extremities or the scalp (in neonates or young infants) can be used as the catheter insertion site [32, 33]. Category II

  3. Select catheters on the basis of the intended purpose and duration of use, known infectious and non-infectious complications (e.g., phlebitis and infiltration), and experience of individual catheter operators [3335]. Category IB

  4. Avoid the use of steel needles for the administration of fluids and medication that might cause tissue necrosis if extravasation occurs [33, 34]. Category IA

  5. Use a midline catheter or peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC), instead of a short peripheral catheter, when the duration of IV therapy will likely exceed six days. Category II

  6. Evaluate the catheter insertion site daily by palpation through the dressing to discern tenderness and by inspection if a transparent dressing is in use. Gauze and opaque dressings should not be removed if the patient has no clinical signs of infection. If the patient has local tenderness or other signs of possible CRBSI, an opaque dressing should be removed and the site inspected visually. Category II

  7. Remove peripheral venous catheters if the patients develops signs of phlebitis (warmth, tenderness, erythema or palpable venous cord), infection, or a malfunctioning catheter [36]. Category IB

Central Venous Catheters.

  1. Weigh the risks and benefits of placing a central venous device at a recommended site to reduce infectious complications against the risk for mechanical complications (e.g., pneumothorax, subclavian artery puncture, subclavian vein laceration, subclavian vein stenosis, hemothorax, thrombosis, air embolism, and catheter misplacement) [3753]. Category IA

  2. Avoid using the femoral vein for central venous access in adult patients [38, 50, 51, 54]. Category 1A

  3. Use a subclavian site, rather than a jugular or a femoral site, in adult patients to minimize infection risk for nontunneled CVC placement [5052]. Category IB

  4. No recommendation can be made for a preferred site of insertion to minimize infection risk for a tunneled CVC. Unresolved issue

  5. Avoid the subclavian site in hemodialysis patients and patients with advanced kidney disease, to avoid subclavian vein stenosis [53,5558]. Category IA

  6. Use a fistula or graft in patients with chronic renal failure instead of a CVC for permanent access for dialysis [59]. Category 1A

  7. Use ultrasound guidance to place central venous catheters (if this technology is available) to reduce the number of cannulation attempts and mechanical complications. Ultrasound guidance should only be used by those fully trained in its technique. [6064]. Category 1B

  8. Use a CVC with the minimum number of ports or lumens essential for the management of the patient [6568]. Category IB

  9. No recommendation can be made regarding the use of a designated lumen for parenteral nutrition. Unresolved issue

  10. Promptly remove any intravascular catheter that is no longer essential [6972]. Category IA

  11. When adherence to aseptic technique cannot be ensured (i.e catheters inserted during a medical emergency), replace the catheter as soon as possible, i.e, within 48 hours [37,7376]. Category IB

Hand Hygiene and Aseptic Technique

  1. Perform hand hygiene procedures, either by washing hands with conventional soap and water or with alcohol-based hand rubs (ABHR). Hand hygiene should be performed before and after palpating catheter insertion sites as well as before and after inserting, replacing, accessing, repairing, or dressing an intravascular catheter. Palpation of the insertion site should not be performed after the application of antiseptic, unless aseptic technique is maintained [12,7779]. Category IB

  2. Maintain aseptic technique for the insertion and care of intravascular catheters [37, 73, 74, 76]. Category IB

  3. Wear clean gloves, rather than sterile gloves, for the insertion of peripheral intravascular catheters, if the access site is not touched after the application of skin antiseptics. Category IC

  4. Sterile gloves should be worn for the insertion of arterial, central, and midline catheters [37, 73, 74, 76]. Category IA

  5. Use new sterile gloves before handling the new catheter when guidewire exchanges are performed. Category II

  6. Wear either clean or sterile gloves when changing the dressing on intravascular catheters. Category IC

Maximal Sterile Barrier Precautions

  1. Use maximal sterile barrier precautions, including the use of a cap, mask, sterile gown, sterile gloves, and a sterile full body drape, for the insertion of CVCs, PICCs, or guidewire exchange [14, 75, 76, 80]. Category IB

  2. Use a sterile sleeve to protect pulmonary artery catheters during insertion [81]. Category IB

Skin Preparation

  1. Prepare clean skin with an antiseptic (70% alcohol, tincture of iodine, an iodophor or chlorhexidine gluconate) before peripheral venous catheter insertion [83]. Category IB

  2. Prepare clean skin with a >0.5% chlorhexidine preparation with alcohol before central venous catheter and peripheral arterial catheter insertion and during dressing changes. If there is a contraindication to chlorhexidine, tincture of iodine, an iodophor, or 70% alcohol can be used as alternatives [83, 84]. Category IA

  3. No comparison has been made between using chlorhexidine preparations with alcohol and povidone-iodine in alcohol to prepare clean skin. Unresolved issue.

  4. No recommendation can be made for the safety or efficacy of chlorhexidine in infants aged <2 months. Unresolved issue

  5. Antiseptics should be allowed to dry according to the manufacturer's recommendation prior to placing the catheter [83, 84]. Category IB

Catheter Site Dressing Regimens

  1. Use either sterile gauze or sterile, transparent, semi-permeable dressing to cover the catheter site [8588]. Category IA

  2. If the patient is diaphoretic or if the site is bleeding or oozing, use gauze dressing until this is resolved [8588]. Category II

  3. Replace catheter site dressing if the dressing becomes damp, loosened, or visibly soiled [84, 85]. Category IB

  4. Do not use topical antibiotic ointment or creams on insertion sites, except for dialysis catheters, because of their potential to promote fungal infections and antimicrobial resistance [89, 90]. Category IB

  5. Do not submerge the catheter or catheter site in water. Showering should be permitted if precautions can be taken to reduce the likelihood of introducing organisms into the catheter (e.g., if the catheter and connecting device are protected with an impermeable cover during the shower) [9193]. Category IB

  6. Replace dressings used on short-term CVC sites every 2 days for gauze dressings. Category II

  7. Replace dressings used on short-term CVC sites at least every 7 days for transparent dressings, except in those pediatric patients in which the risk for dislodging the catheter may outweigh the benefit of changing the dressing [88, 94]. Category IB

  8. Replace transparent dressings used on tunneled or implanted CVC sites no more than once per week (unless the dressing is soiled or loose), until the insertion site has healed. Category II

  9. No recommendation can be made regarding the necessity for any dressing on well-healed exit sites of long-term cuffed and tunneled CVCs. Unresolved issue

  10. Ensure that catheter site care is compatible with the catheter material [95, 96]. Category IB

  11. Use a sterile sleeve for all pulmonary artery catheters [81]. Category IB

  12. Use a chlorhexidine-impregnated sponge dressing for temporary short-term catheters in patients older than 2 months of age if the CLABSI rate is not decreasing despite adherence to basic prevention measures, including education and training, appropriate use of chlorhexidine for skin antisepsis, and MSB [94, 9799]. Category 1B

  13. No recommendation is made for other types of chlorhexidine dressings. Unresolved issue

  14. Monitor the catheter sites visually when changing the dressing or by palpation through an intact dressing on a regular basis, depending on the clinical situation of the individual patient. If patients have tenderness at the insertion site, fever without obvious source, or other manifestations suggesting local or bloodstream infection, the dressing should be removed to allow thorough examination of the site [100102]. Category IB

  15. Encourage patients to report any changes in their catheter site or any new discomfort to their provider. Category II

Patient Cleansing

Use a 2% chlorhexidine wash for daily skin cleansing to reduce CRBSI [103105]. Category II

Catheter Securement Devices

Use a sutureless securement device to reduce the risk of infection for intravascular catheters [106]. Category II

Antimicrobial/Antiseptic Impregnated Catheters and Cuffs

Use a chlorhexidine/silver sulfadiazine or minocycline/rifampin -impregnated CVC in patients whose catheter is expected to remain in place >5 days if, after successful implementation of a comprehensive strategy to reduce rates of CLABSI, the CLABSI rate is not decreasing. The comprehensive strategy should include at least the following three components: educating persons who insert and maintain catheters, use of maximal sterile barrier precautions, and a >0.5% chlorhexidine preparation with alcohol for skin antisepsis during CVC insertion [107114]. Category IA

Systemic Antibiotic Prophylaxis

Do not administer systemic antimicrobial prophylaxis routinely before insertion or during use of an intravascular catheter to prevent catheter colonization or CRBSI [115]. Category IB

Antibiotic/Antiseptic Ointments

Use povidone iodine antiseptic ointment or bacitracin/gramicidin/polymyxin B ointment at the hemodialysis catheter exit site after catheter insertion and at the end of each dialysis session only if this ointment does not interact with the material of the hemodialysis catheter per manufacturer's recommendation [59, 115119]. Category IB

Antibiotic Lock Prophylaxis, Antimicrobial Catheter Flush and Catheter Lock Prophylaxis

Use prophylactic antimicrobial lock solution in patients with long term catheters who have a history of multiple CRBSI despite optimal maximal adherence to aseptic technique [120138]. Category II

Anticoagulants

Do not routinely use anticoagulant therapy to reduce the risk of catheter-related infection in general patient populations [139]. Category II

Replacement of Peripheral and Midline Catheters

  1. There is no need to replace peripheral catheters more frequently than every 72-96 hours to reduce risk of infection and phlebitis in adults [36, 140, 141]. Category 1B

  2. No recommendation is made regarding replacement of peripheral catheters in adults only when clinically indicated [142144]. Unresolved issue

  3. Replace peripheral catheters in children only when clinically indicated [32, 33]. Category 1B

  4. Replace midline catheters only when there is a specific indication. Category II

Replacement of CVCs, Including PICCs and Hemodialysis Catheters

  1. Do not routinely replace CVCs, PICCs, hemodialysis catheters, or pulmonary artery catheters to prevent catheter-related infections. Category IB

  2. Do not remove CVCs or PICCs on the basis of fever alone. Use clinical judgment regarding the appropriateness of removing the catheter if infection is evidenced elsewhere or if a noninfectious cause of fever is suspected. Category II

  3. Do not use guidewire exchanges routinely for non-tunneled catheters to prevent infection. Category IB

  4. Do not use guidewire exchanges to replace a non-tunneled catheter suspected of infection. Category IB

  5. Use a guidewire exchange to replace a malfunctioning non-tunneled catheter if no evidence of infection is present. Category IB

  6. Use new sterile gloves before handling the new catheter when guidewire exchanges are performed. Category II

Umbilical Catheters

  1. Remove and do not replace umbilical artery catheters if any signs of CRBSI, vascular insufficiency in the lower extremeties, or thrombosis are present [145]. Category II

  2. Remove and do not replace umbilical venous catheters if any signs of CRBSI or thrombosis are present [145]. Category II

  3. No recommendation can be made regarding attempts to salvage an umbilical catheter by administering antibiotic treatment through the catheter. Unresolved issue

  4. Cleanse the umbilical insertion site with an antiseptic before catheter insertion. Avoid tincture of iodine because of the potential effect on the neonatal thyroid. Other iodine-containing products (e.g., povidone iodine) can be used [146150]. Category IB

  5. Do not use topical antibiotic ointment or creams on umbilical catheter insertion sites because of the potential to promote fungal infections and antimicrobial resistance [89, 90]. Category IA

  6. Add low-doses of heparin (0.25–1.0 U/ml) to the fluid infused through umbilical arterial catheters [151153]. Category IB

  7. Remove umbilical catheters as soon as possible when no longer needed or when any sign of vascular insufficiency to the lower extremities is observed. Optimally, umbilical artery catheters should not be left in place >5 days [145, 154]. Category II

  8. Umbilical venous catheters should be removed as soon as possible when no longer needed, but can be used up to 14 days if managed aseptically [155, 156]. Category II

  9. An umbilical catheter may be replaced if it is malfunctioning, and there is no other indication for catheter removal, and the total duration of catheterization has not exceeded 5 days for an umbilical artery catheter or 14 days for an umbilical vein catheter. Category II

Peripheral Arterial Catheters and Pressure Monitoring Devices for Adult and Pediatric Patients

  1. In adults, use of the radial, brachial or dorsalis pedis sites is preferred over the femoral or axillary sites of insertion to reduce the risk of infection [46, 47, 157, 158]. Category IB

  2. In children, the brachial site should not be used. The vradial, dorsalis pedis, and posterior tibial sites are preferred over the femoral or axillary sites of insertion [46]. Category II

  3. A minimum of a cap, mask, sterile gloves and a small sterile fenestrated drape should be used during peripheral arterial catheter insertion [47, 158, 159]. Category IB

  4. During axillary or femoral artery catheter insertion, maximal sterile barriers precautions should be used. Category II

  5. Replace arterial catheters only when there is a clinical indication. Category II

  6. Remove the arterial catheter as soon as it is no longer needed. Category II

  7. Use disposable, rather than reusable, transducer assemblies when possible [160164]. Category IB

  8. Do not routinely replace arterial catheters to prevent catheter-related infections [165, 166, 167, 168]. Category II

  9. Replace disposable or reusable transducers at 96-hour intervals. Replace other components of the system (including the tubing, continuous-flush device, and flush solution) at the time the transducer is replaced [37, 161]. Category IB

  10. Keep all components of the pressure monitoring system (including calibration devices and flush solution) sterile [160, 169171]. Category IA

  11. Minimize the number of manipulations of and entries into the pressure monitoring system. Use a closed flush system (i.e, continuous flush), rather than an open system (i.e, one that requires a syringe and stopcock), to maintain the patency of the pressure monitoring catheters [163, 172]. Category II

  12. When the pressure monitoring system is accessed through a diaphragm, rather than a stopcock, scrub the diaphragm with an appropriate antiseptic before accessing the system [163]. Category IA

  13. Do not administer dextrose-containing solutions or parenteral nutrition fluids through the pressure monitoring circuit [163, 173, 174]. Category IA

  14. Sterilize reusable transducers according to the manufacturers' instructions if the use of disposable transducers is not feasible [163, 173176]. Category IA

Replacement of Administration Sets

  1. In patients not receiving blood, blood products or fat emulsions, replace administration sets that are continuously used, including secondary sets and add-on devices, no more frequently than at 96-hour intervals, [177] but at least every 7 days [178181]. Category IA

  2. No recommendation can be made regarding the frequency for replacing intermittently used administration sets.Unresolved issue

  3. No recommendation can be made regarding the frequency for replacing needles to access implantable ports. Unresolved issue

  4. Replace tubing used to administer blood, blood products, or fat emulsions (those combined with amino acids and glucose in a 3-in-1 admixture or infused separately) within 24 hours of initiating the infusion [182185]. Category IB

  5. Replace tubing used to administer propofol infusions every 6 or 12 hours, when the vial is changed, per the manufacturer's recommendation (FDA website Medwatch) [186]. Category IA

  6. No recommendation can be made regarding the length of time a needle used to access implanted ports can remain in place. Unresolved issue

Needleless Intravascular Catheter Systems

  1. Change the needleless components at least as frequently as the administration set. There is no benefit to changing these more frequently than every 72 hours. [39, 187193]. Category II

  2. Change needleless connectors no more frequently than every 72 hours or according to manufacturers' recommendations for the purpose of reducing infection rates [187, 189, 192, 193]. Category II

  3. Ensure that all components of the system are compatible to minimize leaks and breaks in the system [194]. Category II

  4. Minimize contamination risk by scrubbing the access port with an appropriate antiseptic (chlorhexidine, povidone iodine, an iodophor, or 70% alcohol) and accessing the port only with sterile devices [189, 192, 194196]. Category IA

  5. Use a needleless system to access IV tubing. Category IC

  6. When needleless systems are used, a split septum valve may be preferred over some mechanical valves due to increased risk of infection with the mechanical valves [197200]. Category II

Performance Improvement

Use hospital-specific or collaborative-based performance improvement initiatives in which multifaceted strategies are “bundled” together to improve compliance with evidence-based recommended practices [15, 69, 70, 201205]. Category IB

Acknowledgments

Notice to Readers. In 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) integrated current advances in guideline production and implementation into its development process (http://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/guidelineMethod/guidelineMethod. html). The new methodology enables CDC and HICPAC to improve the validity and usability of its guidelines while also addressing emerging challenges in guideline development in the area of infection prevention and control. However, the Guidelines for the Prevention of Intravascular Catheter-Related Infections were initiated before the methodology was revised. Therefore, this guideline reflects the development methods that were used for guidelines produced prior to 2009. Future revisions will be performed using the updated methodology.

Financial support.E.P.D. Grant support through the NIH.

Potential conflicts of interest. N.P.O.'G. served as a board member for the ABIM Subspecialty Board for Critical Care Medicine. M.A. is an employee of the Infusion Nurses Society, Honoraria from 3M, Becton Dickinson, Smiths Medical. L.A.B. is a consultant for Institute of Healthcare Improvement, Board membership for Theradoc, Medline. Honoraria from APIC, Clorox. E.P.D. consulting from Merck, Baxter, Ortho-McNeil, Targanta, Schering-Plough, Optimer, Cadence, Cardinal, BDGeneOhm, WebEx, Cerebrio, and Tyco. Grant support through the NIH. Payment for lecture from Merck. Payment for development of educational presentation from Medscape. Travel and meeting expenses paid for by ASHP, IDSA, ASM, American College of Surgeons, NQF, SHEA/CDC, HHS, Trauma Shock Inflammation and Sepsis Meeting (Munich), University of Minnesota. J.G. Honoria from Ethicon. S.O.H. provides research support from Angiotech; Honoraria from Angiotech, Merck. L.A.M provides research support from Astellas, Theravance, Pfizer; Consulting for Ash Access, Cadence, CorMedix, Catheter Connections, Carefusion, Sage, Bard, Teleflex; Payment for manuscript preparation from Catheter Connections. I.I.R. provides research support from Cubist, Enzon, and Basilea;Consulting for Clorox; Stock Equity or Options in Great Lakes Pharmaceuticalsand Inventive Protocol; Speakers Bureau for Cook, Inc.; Royalty income (patents owned by MD Anderson on which Dr. Raad in an inventor: American Medical Systems, Cook, Inc., Cook urological, Teleflex, TyRx, Medtronic, Biomet, Great Lakes Pharmaceuticals. A.R. consulting income from Eisai Pharmaceuticals, Discovery Laboratories. M.E.R. provides research support from Molnlycke, Cardinal Healthcare Foundation, Sanofi-Pasteur, 3M, and Cubist; Consulting from Semprus; Honorarium for lectures from 3M, Carefusion, Baxter and Becton Dickinson. Previously served on Board of Directors for Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All other authors: no conflicts.

Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC)

Chairman

BRENNAN, Patrick J., MD

Chief Medical Officer

Division of Infectious Diseases

University of Pennsylvania Health System

Membership

BRATZLER, Dale, DO, MPH

President and CEO

Oklahoma Foundation for Medical Quality

BURNS, Lillian A., MT, MPH

Infection Control Coordinator

Greenwich Hospital, Infectious Diseases Department

ELWARD, Alexis, MD

Assistant Professor, Pediatrics Infectious Diseases

Washington University School of Medicine

Department of Pediatrics

Division of Infectious Diseases

HUANG, Susan, MD, MPH

Assistant Professor, Medical Director, Epidemiology and Infection Prevention

Division of Infectious Diseases, UC Irvine School of Medicine

LUNDSTROM, Tammy, MD, JDChief Medical OfficerProvidence Hospital

MCCARTER, Yvette S., PhD Director, Clinical Microbiology Laboratory

Department of Pathology

University of Florida Health Science Center

MURPHY, Denise M. RN, MPH, CIC

Vice President, Quality and Patient Safety

Main Line Health System

Executive Secretary

BELL, Michael R., MD

Deputy Director

Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

OSTROFF, Stephen, MD

Director, Bureau of Epidemiology

Pennsylvania Department of Health

OLMSTED, Russell N., MPH, CIC

Epidemiologist

Infection Control Services

St. Joseph Mercy Health System

PEGUES, David Alexander, MD

Professor of Medicine, Hospital Epidemiologist

David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA

PRONOVOST, Peter J., MD, PhD, FCCM

Director, Johns Hopkins Quality and Safety Research Group

Johns Hopkins Quality and Safety Research Group

SOULE, Barbara M., RN, MPA, CIC

Practice Leader

Infection Prevention and Control Services

Joint Commission Resources/Joint Commission International

SCHECTER, William, P., MD

Professor of Surgery

Department of Surgery

San Francisco General Hospital

Ex-officio Members

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)

BAINE, William B., MD

Senior Medical Advisor

Center for Outcomes and Evidence

Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)

MILLER, Jeannie, RN, MPH

Deputy Director, Office of Clinical Standards and Quality

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

MURPHEY, Sheila A., MD Branch Chief, Infection Control Devices

Division of Anesthesiology, General Hospital Infection Control Dental Devices

Center for Devices and Radiology Health

Liaisons

Advisory Council for the Elimination of Tuberculosis (ACET)

STRICOF, Rachel L., MPH

New York State Department of Health

American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

RUSSI, Mark, MD, MPH

Professor of Medicine

Yale University School of Medicine

Director, Occupational Health

Yale-New Haven Hospital

American Health Care Assn (AHCA)

FITZLER, Sandra L., RN

Senior Director of Clinical Services

American Hospital Association (AHA)

SCHULMAN, Roslyne, MHA, MBA

Director, Policy Development

Association of Professionals of InfectionControl and Epidemiology, Inc. (APIC)

DeBAUN, Barbara, MSN, RN, CIC

Association of periOperative Registered Nursed (AORN)

BLANCHARD, Joan C., RN, BSN

Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE)

KAINER, Marion MD, MPH

Director, Hospital Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance ProgramTennessee Department Health

National Institute of Health (NIH)

HENDERSON, David, MD

Deputy Director for Clinical Care

Associate Director for Hospital Epidemiology and Quality Improvement NIH Clinical Center

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

ROSELLE, Gary A., MD

National Program Director, Infectious Diseases

VA Central Office

Cincinnati VA Medical Center

Consumers Union

MCGIFFERT, Lisa

Senior Policy Analyst on Health Issues

Project Director Stop Hospital Infections Organization

Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA)

Huskins, W. Charles MD, MSc Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases

Assistant Professor of Pediatrics Mayo Clinic

Public Health Agency of Canada

PATON, Shirley, RN, MN

Senior Advisor Healthcare Acquired Infections

Center for Communicable Diseases and Infection Control

Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA)

MARAGAKIS, Lisa, MDAssistant Professor of Medicine John Hopkins Medical Institutions

Society of Hospital Medicine

Saint, Sanjay, MD, MPH Director, Ann Arbor VA Medical Center/University of Michigan Patient Safety Enhancement Program

The Joint Commission

WISE, Robert A., MD

Vice President

Division of Standards & Survey Methods

References

  • 1.Mermel LA. Prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. (Erratum: Ann Intern Med 133:395, 2000). Ann Intern Med. 2000;132:391–402. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-132-5-200003070-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Dimick JB, Pelz RK, Consunji R, Swoboda SM, Hendrix CW, Lipsett PA. Increased resource use associated with catheter-related bloodstream infection in the surgical intensive care unit. Arch Surg. 2001;136:229–34. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.136.2.229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Warren DK, Quadir WW, Hollenbeak CS, Elward AM, Cox MJ, Fraser VJ. Attributable cost of catheter-associated bloodstream infections among intensive care patients in a nonteaching hospital. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:2084–9. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000227648.15804.2D. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Blot SI, Depuydt P, Annemans L, et al. Clinical and economic outcomes in critically ill patients with nosocomial catheter-related bloodstream infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41:1591–8. doi: 10.1086/497833. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Renaud B, Brun-Buisson C. Outcomes of primary and catheter-related bacteremia. A cohort and case-control study in critically ill patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2001;163:1584–90. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.163.7.9912080. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Maki DG, Kluger DM, Crnich CJ. The risk of bloodstream infection in adults with different intravascular devices: a systematic review of 200 published prospective studies. Mayo Clin Proc. 2006;81:1159–71. doi: 10.4065/81.9.1159. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Yoo S, Ha M, Choi D, Pai H. Effectiveness of surveillance of central catheter-related bloodstream infection in an ICU in Korea. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2001;22:433–6. doi: 10.1086/501930. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Warren DK, Zack JE, Cox MJ, Cohen MM, Fraser VJ. An educational intervention to prevent catheter-associated bloodstream infections in a non-teeaching community medical center. Crit Care Med. 2003;31:1959–63. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000069513.15417.1C. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Warren DK, Zack JE, Mayfield JL, et al. The effect of an education program on the incidence of central venous catheter-associated bloodstream infection in a medical ICU. Chest. 2004;126:1612–8. doi: 10.1378/chest.126.5.1612. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Warren DK, Cosgrove SE, Diekema DJ, et al. A multicenter intervention to prevent catheter-associated bloodstream infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2006;27:662–9. doi: 10.1086/506184. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Higuera F, Rosenthal VD, Duarte P, Ruiz J, Franco G, Safdar N. The effect of process control on the incidence of central venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections and mortality in intensive care units in Mexico. Crit Care Med. 2005;33:2022–7. doi: 10.1097/01.ccm.0000178190.89663.e5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Coopersmith CM, Rebmann TL, Zack JE, 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. doi: 10.1097/00003246-200201000-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Coopersmith CM, Zack JE, Ward MR, et al. The impact of bedside behavior on catheter-related bacteremia in the intensive care unit. Arch Surg. 2004;139:131–6. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.139.2.131. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Sherertz RJ, Ely EW, Westbrook DM, et al. Education of physicians-in-training can decrease the risk for vascular catheter infection. Ann Intern Med. 2000;132:641–8. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-132-8-200004180-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Eggimann P, Harbarth S, Constantin MN, Touveneau S, Chevrolet JC, Pittet D. Impact of a prevention strategy targeted at vascular-access care on incidence of infections acquired in intensive care. Lancet. 2000;355:1864–8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02291-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Nehme AE. Nutritional support of the hospitalized patient. The team concept. JAMA. 1980;243:1906–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Soifer NE, Borzak S, Edlin BR, Weinstein RA. Prevention of peripheral venous catheter complications with an intravenous therapy team: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 1998;158:473–7. doi: 10.1001/archinte.158.5.473. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Tomford JW, Hershey CO, McLaren CE, Porter DK, Cohen DI. Intravenous therapy team and peripheral venous catheter-associated complications. A prospective controlled study. Arch Intern Med. 1984;144:1191–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Scalley RD, Van CS, Cochran RS. The impact of an i.v. team on the occurrence of intravenous-related phlebitis. A 30-month study. J Intraven Nurs. 1992;15:100–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Palefski SS, Stoddard GJ. The infusion nurse and patient complication rates of peripheral-short catheters. A prospective evaluation. J Intraven Nurs. 2001;24:113–23. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Miller JM, Goetz AM, Squier C, Muder RR. Reduction in nosocomial intravenous device-related bacteremias after institution of an intravenous therapy team. J Intraven Nurs. 1996;19:103–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Hunter MR. Development of a Vascular Access Team in an acute care setting. J Infus Nurs. 2003;26:86–91. doi: 10.1097/00129804-200303000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hawes ML. A proactive approach to combating venous depletion in the hospital setting. J Infus Nurs. 2007;30:33–44. doi: 10.1097/00129804-200701000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Brunelle D. Impact of a dedicated infusion therapy team on the reduction of catheter-related nosocomial infections. J Infus Nurs. 2003;26:362–6. doi: 10.1097/00129804-200311000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Bosma TL, Jewesson PJ. An infusion program resource nurse consult service: our experience in a major Canadian teaching hospital. J Infus Nurs. 2002;25:310–5. doi: 10.1097/00129804-200209000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Pierce CA, Baker JJ. A nursing process model: quantifying infusion therapy resource consumption. J Infus Nurs. 2004;27:232–44. doi: 10.1097/00129804-200407000-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Tomford JW, Hershey CO. The i.v. therapy team: impact on patient care and costs of hospitalization. NITA. 1985;8:387–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Davis D, O'Brien MA, Freemantle N, Wolf FM, Mazmanian P, Taylor-Vaisey A. Impact of formal continuing medical education: do conferences, workshops, rounds, and other traditional continuing education activities change physician behavior or health care outcomes? JAMA. 1999;282:867–74. doi: 10.1001/jama.282.9.867. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Alonso-Echanove J, Edwards JR, Richards MJ, et al. Effect of nurse staffing and antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters on the risk for bloodstream infections in intensive care units. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2003;24:916–25. doi: 10.1086/502160. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Fridkin SK, Pear SM, Williamson TH, Galgiani JN, Jarvis WR. The role of understaffing in central venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996;17:150–8. doi: 10.1086/647262. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Robert J, Fridkin SK, Blumberg HM, et al. The influence of the composition of the nursing staff on primary bloodstream infection rates in a surgical intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2000;21:12–7. doi: 10.1086/501690. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Maki DG, Goldman DA, Rhame FS. Infection control in intravenous therapy. Ann Intern Med. 1973;79:867–87. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-79-6-867. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Band JD, Maki DG. Steel needles used for intravenous therapy. Morbidity in patients with hematologic malignancy. Arch Intern Med. 1980;140:31–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Tully JL, Friedland GH, Baldini LM, Goldmann DA. Complications of intravenous therapy with steel needles and Teflon catheters. A comparative study. Am J Med. 1981;70:702–6. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(81)90600-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Ryder MA. Peripheral access options. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 1995;4:395–427. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.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. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-114-10-845. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.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–205. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(91)90369-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Parienti JJ, Thirion M, Megarbane B, et al. Femoral vs jugular venous catheterization and risk of nosocomial events in adults requiring acute renal replacement therapy: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2008;299:2413–22. doi: 10.1001/jama.299.20.2413. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Moretti EW, Ofstead CL, Kristy RM, Wetzler HP. Impact of central venous catheter type and methods on catheter-related colonization and bacteraemia. J Hosp Infect. 2005;61:139–45. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2005.02.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Nagashima G, Kikuchi T, Tsuyuzaki H, et al. To reduce catheter-related bloodstream infections: is the subclavian route better than the jugular route for central venous catheterization? J Infect Chemother. 2006;12:363–5. doi: 10.1007/s10156-006-0471-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Ruesch S, Walder B, Tramer MR. Complications of central venous catheters: internal jugular versus subclavian access–a systematic review. Crit Care Med. 2002;30:454–60. doi: 10.1097/00003246-200202000-00031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Sadoyama G, Gontijo Filho PP. Comparison between the jugular and subclavian vein as insertion site for central venous catheters: microbiological aspects and risk factors for colonization and infection. Braz J Infect Dis. 2003;7:142–8. doi: 10.1590/s1413-86702003000200008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Heard SO, Wagle M, Vijayakumar E, et al. Influence of triple-lumen central venous catheters coated with chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine on the incidence of catheter-related bacteremia. Arch Intern Med. 1998;158:81–7. doi: 10.1001/archinte.158.1.81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.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;28:2520–5. doi: 10.1128/jcm.28.11.2520-2525.1990. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Safdar N, Kluger DM, Maki DG. A review of risk factors for catheter-related bloodstream infection caused by percutaneously inserted, noncuffed central venous catheters: implications for preventive strategies. Medicine (Baltimore) 2002;81:466–79. doi: 10.1097/00005792-200211000-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Lorente L, Jimenez A, Iribarren JL, Jimenez JJ, Martin MM, Mora ML. The micro-organism responsible for central venous catheter related bloodstream infection depends on catheter site. Intensive Care Med. 2006;32:1449–50. doi: 10.1007/s00134-006-0266-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Traore O, Liotier J, Souweine B. Prospective study of arterial and central venous catheter colonization and of arterial- and central venous catheter-related bacteremia in intensive care units. Crit Care Med. 2005;33:1276–80. doi: 10.1097/01.ccm.0000166350.90812.d4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Joynt GM, Kew J, Gomersall CD, Leung VY, Liu EK. Deep venous thrombosis caused by femoral venous catheters in critically ill adult patients. Chest. 2000;117:178–83. doi: 10.1378/chest.117.1.178. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Mian NZ, Bayly R, Schreck DM, Besserman EB, Richmand D. Incidence of deep venous thrombosis associated with femoral venous catheterization. Acad Emerg Med. 1997;4:1118–21. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.1997.tb03693.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Merrer J, De Jonghe B, Golliot F, et al. Complications of femoral and subclavian venous catheterization in critically ill patients: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2001;286:700–7. doi: 10.1001/jama.286.6.700. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.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. 1998;19:842–5. doi: 10.1086/647742. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Robinson JF, Robinson WA, Cohn A, Garg K, Armstrong JD. 2nd. Perforation of the great vessels during central venous line placement. Arch Intern Med. 1995;155:1225–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Trottier SJ, Veremakis C, O'Brien J, Auer AI. Femoral deep vein thrombosis associated with central venous catheterization: results from a prospective, randomized trial. Crit Care Med. 1995;23:52–9. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199501000-00011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Lorente L, Henry C, Martin MM, Jimenez A, Mora ML. Central venous catheter-related infection in a prospective and observational study of 2,595 catheters. Crit Care. 2005;9:R631–5. doi: 10.1186/cc3824. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Schillinger F, Schillinger D, Montagnac R, Milcent T. Post catheterisation vein stenosis in haemodialysis: comparative angiographic study of 50 subclavian and 50 internal jugular accesses. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1991;6:722–4. doi: 10.1093/ndt/6.10.722. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Cimochowski GE, Worley E, Rutherford WE, Sartain J, Blondin J, Harter H. Superiority of the internal jugular over the subclavian access for temporary dialysis. Nephron. 1990;54:154–61. doi: 10.1159/000185837. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Barrett N, Spencer S, McIvor J, Brown EA. Subclavian stenosis: a major complication of subclavian dialysis catheters. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1988;3:423–5. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.ndt.a091691. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Trerotola SO, Kuhn-Fulton J, Johnson MS, Shah H, Ambrosius WT, Kneebone PH. Tunneled infusion catheters: increased incidence of symptomatic venous thrombosis after subclavian versus internal jugular venous access. Radiology. 2000;217:89–93. doi: 10.1148/radiology.217.1.r00oc2789. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.National Kidney Foundation. III. NKF-K/DOQI Clinical Practice Guidelines for Vascular Access: update 2000. Am J Kidney Dis. 2001;37:S137–81. doi: 10.1016/s0272-6386(01)70007-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Hind D, Calvert N, McWilliams R, et al. Ultrasonic locating devices for central venous cannulation: meta-analysis. BMJ. 2003;327:361. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7411.361. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Randolph AG, Cook DJ, Gonzales CA, Pribble CG. Ultrasound guidance for placement of central venous catheters: a meta-analysis of the literature. Crit Care Med. 1996;24:2053–8. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199612000-00020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Froehlich CD, Rigby MR, Rosenberg ES, et al. Ultrasound-guided central venous catheter placement decreases complications and decreases placement attempts compared with the landmark technique in patients in a pediatric intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2009;37:1090–6. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31819b570e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Lamperti M, Caldiroli D, Cortellazzi P, et al. Safety and efficacy of ultrasound assistance during internal jugular vein cannulation in neurosurgical infants. Intensive Care Med. 2008;34:2100–5. doi: 10.1007/s00134-008-1210-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Schweickert WD, Herlitz J, Pohlman AS, Gehlbach BK, Hall JB, Kress JP. A randomized, controlled trial evaluating postinsertion neck ultrasound in peripherally inserted central catheter procedures. Crit Care Med. 2009;37:1217–21. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31819cee7f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Clark-Christoff N, Watters VA, Sparks W, Snyder P, Grant JP. Use of triple-lumen subclavian catheters for administration of total parenteral nutrition. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1992;16:403–7. doi: 10.1177/0148607192016005403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Early TF, Gregory RT, Wheeler JR, Snyder SO, Jr., Gayle RG. Increased infection rate in double-lumen versus single-lumen Hickman catheters in cancer patients. South Med J. 1990;83:34–6. doi: 10.1097/00007611-199001000-00010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.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. Am J Med. 1988;84:667–72. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(88)90102-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Yeung C, May J, Hughes R. Infection rate for single lumen v triple lumen subclavian catheters. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1988;9:154–8. doi: 10.1086/645820. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Pronovost P, Needham D, Berenholtz S, et al. An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2725–32. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa061115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Berenholtz SM, Pronovost PJ, Lipsett PA, et al. Eliminating catheter-related bloodstream infections in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2004;32:2014–20. doi: 10.1097/01.ccm.0000142399.70913.2f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Lederle FA, Parenti CM, Berskow LC, Ellingson KJ. The idle intravenous catheter. Ann Intern Med. 1992;116:737–8. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-116-9-737. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Parenti CM, Lederle FA, Impola CL, Peterson LR. Reduction of unnecessary intravenous catheter use. Internal medicine house staff participate in a successful quality improvement project. Arch Intern Med. 1994;154:1829–32. doi: 10.1001/archinte.154.16.1829. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Abi-Said D, Raad I, Umphrey J, et al. Infusion therapy team and dressing changes of central venous catheters. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20:101–5. doi: 10.1086/501597. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Capdevila JA, Segarra A, Pahissa A. Catheter-related bacteremia in patients undergoing hemodialysis. Ann Intern Med. 1998;128:600. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-128-7-199804010-00020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Mermel LA, Maki DG. Infectious complications of Swan-Ganz pulmonary artery catheters. Pathogenesis, epidemiology, prevention, and management. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1994;149:1020–36. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.149.4.8143037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Raad II, Hohn DC, Gilbreath BJ, et al. Prevention of central venous catheter-related infections by using maximal sterile barrier precautions during insertion. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1994;15:231–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Boyce JM, Pittet D. Guideline for hand hygiene in health-care settings: recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2002;23:S3–40. doi: 10.1086/503164. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Bischoff WE, Reynolds TM, Sessler CN, Edmond MB, Wenzel RP. Handwashing compliance by health care workers: the impact of introducing an accessible, alcohol-based hand antiseptic. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:1017–21. doi: 10.1001/archinte.160.7.1017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Pittet D, Dharan S, Touveneau S, Sauvan V, Perneger TV. Bacterial contamination of the hands of hospital staff during routine patient care. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159:821–6. doi: 10.1001/archinte.159.8.821. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Carrer S, Bocchi A, Bortolotti M, et al. Effect of different sterile barrier precautions and central venous catheter dressing on the skin colonization around the insertion site. Minerva Anestesiol. 2005;71:197–206. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Cohen Y, Fosse JP, Karoubi P, et al. The "hands-off" catheter and the prevention of systemic infections associated with pulmonary artery catheter: a prospective study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1998;157:284–7. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.157.1.97-03067. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Maki DG, Ringer M, Alvarado CJ. Prospective randomised trial of povidone-iodine, alcohol, and chlorhexidine for prevention of infection associated with central venous and arterial catheters. Lancet. 1991;338:339–43. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)90479-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Mimoz O, Pieroni L, Lawrence C, et al. Prospective, randomized trial of two antiseptic solutions for prevention of central venous or arterial catheter colonization and infection in intensive care unit patients. Crit Care Med. 1996;24:1818–23. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199611000-00010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Maki DG, Stolz SS, Wheeler S, Mermel LA. A prospective, randomized trial of gauze and two polyurethane dressings for site care of pulmonary artery catheters: implications for catheter management. Crit Care Med. 1994;22:1729–37. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Bijma R, Girbes AR, Kleijer DJ, Zwaveling JH. Preventing central venous catheter-related infection in a surgical intensive-care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20:618–20. doi: 10.1086/501682. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Madeo M, Martin CR, Turner C, Kirkby V, Thompson DR. A randomized trial comparing Arglaes (a transparent dressing containing silver ions) to Tegaderm (a transparent polyurethane dressing) for dressing peripheral arterial catheters and central vascular catheters. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 1998;14:187–91. doi: 10.1016/s0964-3397(98)80512-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Rasero L, Degl'Innocenti M, Mocali M, et al. Comparison of two different time interval protocols for central venous catheter dressing in bone marrow transplant patients: results of a randomized, multicenter study. The Italian Nurse Bone Marrow Transplant Group (GITMO) Haematologica. 2000;85:275–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Zakrzewska-Bode A, Muytjens HL, Liem KD, Hoogkamp-Korstanje JA. Mupirocin resistance in coagulase-negative staphylococci, after topical prophylaxis for the reduction of colonization of central venous catheters. J Hosp Infect. 1995;31:189–93. doi: 10.1016/0195-6701(95)90065-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Flowers RH, Schwenzer KJ, Kopel RF, Fisch MJ, Tucker SI, Farr BM. Efficacy of an attachable subcutaneous cuff for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infection. A randomized, controlled trial. JAMA. 1989;261:878–83. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Robbins J, Cromwell P, Korones DN. Swimming and central venous catheter-related infections in the child with cancer. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs. 1999;16:51–6. doi: 10.1177/104345429901600107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Howell PB, Walters PE, Donowitz GR, Farr BM. Risk factors for infection of adult patients with cancer who have tunnelled central venous catheters. Cancer. 1995;75:1367–75. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19950315)75:6<1367::aid-cncr2820750620>3.0.co;2-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Ivy DD, Calderbank M, Wagner BD, et al. Closed-hub systems with protected connections and the reduction of risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection in pediatric patients receiving intravenous prostanoid therapy for pulmonary hypertension. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009;30:823–9. doi: 10.1086/605320. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Timsit JF, Schwebel C, Bouadma L, et al. Chlorhexidine-impregnated sponges and less frequent dressing changes for prevention of catheter-related infections in critically ill adults: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2009;301:1231–41. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.376. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Rao SP, Oreopoulos DG. Unusual complications of a polyurethane PD catheter. Perit Dial Int. 1997;17:410–2. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Riu S, Ruiz CG, Martinez-Vea A, Peralta C, Oliver JA. Spontaneous rupture of polyurethane peritoneal catheter. A possible deleterious effect of mupirocin ointment. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1998;13:1870–1. doi: 10.1093/ndt/13.7.1870. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Garland JS, Alex CP, Mueller CD, et al. A randomized trial comparing povidone-iodine to a chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated dressing for prevention of central venous catheter infections in neonates. Pediatrics. 2001;107:1431–6. doi: 10.1542/peds.107.6.1431. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Ho KM, Litton E. Use of chlorhexidine-impregnated dressing to prevent vascular and epidural catheter colonization and infection: a meta-analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006;58:281–7. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkl234. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Levy I, Katz J, Solter E, et al. Chlorhexidine-impregnated dressing for prevention of colonization of central venous catheters in infants and children: a randomized controlled study. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2005;24:676–9. doi: 10.1097/01.inf.0000172934.98865.14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Lorenzen AN, Itkin DJ. Surveillance of infection in home care. Am J Infect Control. 1992;20:326–9. doi: 10.1016/s0196-6553(05)80238-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.White MC. Infections and infection risks in home care settings. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1992;13:535–9. doi: 10.1086/646593. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.White MC, Ragland KE. Surveillance of intravenous catheter-related infections among home care clients. Am J Infect Control. 1994;22:231–5. doi: 10.1016/0196-6553(94)99002-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Bleasdale SC, Trick WE, Gonzalez IM, Lyles RD, Hayden MK, Weinstein RA. Effectiveness of chlorhexidine bathing to reduce catheter-associated bloodstream infections in medical intensive care unit patients. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:2073–9. doi: 10.1001/archinte.167.19.2073. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Munoz-Price LS, Hota B, Stemer A, Weinstein RA. Prevention of bloodstream infections by use of daily chlorhexidine baths for patients at a long-term acute care hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009;30:1031–5. doi: 10.1086/644751. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Popovich KJ, Hota B, Hayes R, Weinstein RA, Hayden MK. Effectiveness of routine patient cleansing with chlorhexidine gluconate for infection prevention in the medical intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009;30:959–63. doi: 10.1086/605925. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Yamamoto AJ, Solomon JA, Soulen MC, et al. Sutureless securement device reduces complications of peripherally inserted central venous catheters. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2002;13:77–81. doi: 10.1016/s1051-0443(07)60012-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Brun-Buisson C, Doyon F, Sollet JP, Cochard JF, Cohen Y, Nitenberg G. Prevention of intravascular catheter-related infection with newer chlorhexidine-silver sulfadiazine-coated catheters: a randomized controlled trial. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30:837–43. doi: 10.1007/s00134-004-2221-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Ostendorf T, Meinhold A, Harter C, et al. Chlorhexidine and silver-sulfadiazine coated central venous catheters in haematological patients–a double-blind, randomised, prospective, controlled trial. Support Care Cancer. 2005;13:993–1000. doi: 10.1007/s00520-005-0812-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Rupp ME, Lisco SJ, Lipsett PA, et al. Effect of a second-generation venous catheter impregnated with chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine on central catheter-related infections: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2005;143:570–80. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-143-8-200510180-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Darouiche RO, Raad II, Heard SO, et al. A comparison of two antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters. Catheter Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:1–8. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199901073400101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Raad I, Darouiche R, Dupuis J, et al. Central venous catheters coated with minocycline and rifampin for the prevention of catheter-related colonization and bloodstream infections. A randomized, double-blind trial. The Texas Medical Center Catheter Study Group. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:267–74. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-127-4-199708150-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Hanna H, Benjamin R, Chatzinikolaou I, et al. Long-term silicone central venous catheters impregnated with minocycline and rifampin decrease rates of catheter-related bloodstream infection in cancer patients: a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:3163–71. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.04.124. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Bhutta A, Gilliam C, Honeycutt M, et al. Reduction of bloodstream infections associated with catheters in paediatric intensive care unit: stepwise approach. BMJ. 2007;334:362–5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39064.457025.DE. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Chelliah A, Heydon KH, Zaoutis TE, et al. Observational trial of antibiotic-coated central venous catheters in critically ill pediatric patients. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2007;26:816–20. doi: 10.1097/INF.0b013e318123e8bf. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.van de Wetering MD, van Woensel JBM. Prophylactic antibiotics for preventing early central venous catheter Gram positive infections in oncology patients. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2007 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003295.pub2. Issue 1. Art. No.: CD003295. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003295.pub2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Maki DG, Band JD. A comparative study of polyantibiotic and iodophorointments in prevention of vascular catheter-related infection. Am J Med. 1981;70:739–44. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(81)90605-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Fukunaga A, Naritaka H, Fukaya R, Tabuse M, Nakamura T. Povidone-iodine ointment and gauze dressings associated with reduced catheter-related infection in seriously ill neurosurgical patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2004;25:696–8. doi: 10.1086/502464. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Johnson DW, MacGinley R, Kay TD, et al. A randomized controlled trial of topical exit site mupirocin application in patients with tunnelled, cuffed haemodialysis catheters. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2002;17:1802–7. doi: 10.1093/ndt/17.10.1802. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Fong IW. Prevention of haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis catheter related infection by topical povidone-iodine. Postgrad Med J. 1993;69(Suppl 3):S15–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Levin A, Mason AJ, Jindal KK, Fong IW, Goldstein MB. Prevention of hemodialysis subclavian vein catheter infections by topical povidone-iodine. Kidney Int. 1991;40:934–8. doi: 10.1038/ki.1991.297. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Schwartz C, Henrickson KJ, Roghmann K, Powell K. Prevention of bacteremia attributed to luminal colonization of tunneled central venous catheters with vancomycin-susceptible organisms. J Clin Oncol. 1990;8:1591–7. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1990.8.9.1591. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Rackoff WR, Weiman M, Jakobowski D, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of the efficacy of a heparin and vancomycin solution in preventing central venous catheter infections in children. J Pediatr. 1995;127:147–51. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3476(95)70276-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Carratala J, Niubo J, Fernandez-Sevilla A, et al. Randomized, double-blind trial of an antibiotic-lock technique for prevention of gram-positive central venous catheter-related infection in neutropenic patients with cancer. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1999;43:2200–4. doi: 10.1128/aac.43.9.2200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Jurewitsch B, Lee T, Park J, Jeejeebhoy K. Taurolidine 2% as an antimicrobial lock solution for prevention of recurrent catheter-related bloodstream infections. J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1998;22:242–4. doi: 10.1177/0148607198022004242. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 124.Henrickson KJ, Axtell RA, Hoover SM, et al. Prevention of central venous catheter-related infections and thrombotic events in immunocompromised children by the use of vancomycin/ciprofloxacin/heparin flush solution: a randomized, multicenter, double-blind trial. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:1269–78. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2000.18.6.1269. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 125.Garland JS, Alex CP, Henrickson KJ, McAuliffe TL, Maki DG. A vancomycin-heparin lock solution for prevention of nosocomial bloodstream infection in critically ill neonates with peripherally inserted central venous catheters: a prospective, randomized trial. Pediatrics. 2005;116:e198–205. doi: 10.1542/peds.2004-2674. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 126.Daghistani D, Horn M, Rodriguez Z, Schoenike S, Toledano S. Prevention of indwelling central venous catheter sepsis. Med Pediatr Oncol. 1996;26:405–8. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-911X(199606)26:6<405::AID-MPO6>3.0.CO;2-L. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 127.Barriga FJ, Varas M, Potin M, et al. Efficacy of a vancomycin solution to prevent bacteremia associated with an indwelling central venous catheter in neutropenic and non-neutropenic cancer patients. Med Pediatr Oncol. 1997;28:196–200. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1096-911x(199703)28:3<196::aid-mpo8>3.0.co;2-e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 128.Dogra GK, Herson H, Hutchison B, et al. Prevention of tunneled hemodialysis catheter-related infections using catheter-restricted filling with gentamicin and citrate: a randomized controlled study. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2002;13:2133–9. doi: 10.1097/01.asn.0000022890.29656.22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 129.Allon M. Prophylaxis against dialysis catheter-related bacteremia with a novel antimicrobial lock solution. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;36:1539–44. doi: 10.1086/375234. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 130.Elhassan NO, Stevens TP, Gigliotti F, Hardy DJ, Cole CA, Sinkin RA. Vancomycin usage in central venous catheters in a neonatal intensive care unit. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2004;23:201–6. doi: 10.1097/01.inf.0000114907.13300.86. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 131.McIntyre CW, Hulme LJ, Taal M, Fluck RJ. Locking of tunneled hemodialysis catheters with gentamicin and heparin. Kidney Int. 2004;66:801–5. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1755.2004.00806.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 132.Betjes MG, van Agteren M. Prevention of dialysis catheter-related sepsis with a citrate-taurolidine-containing lock solution. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2004;19:1546–1. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfh014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 133.Weijmer MC, van den Dorpel MA, Van de Ven PJ, et al. Randomized, clinical trial comparison of trisodium citrate 30% and heparin as catheter-locking solution in hemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2005;16:2769–77. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2004100870. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 134.Bleyer AJ, Mason L, Russell G, Raad II, Sherertz RJ. A randomized, controlled trial of a new vascular catheter flush solution (minocycline-EDTA) in temporary hemodialysis access. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2005;26:520–4. doi: 10.1086/502578. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 135.Kim SH, Song KI, Chang JW, et al. Prevention of uncuffed hemodialysis catheter-related bacteremia using an antibiotic lock technique: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. Kidney Int. 2006;69:161–4. doi: 10.1038/sj.ki.5000012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 136.Al-Hwiesh AK, Abdul-Rahman IS. Successful prevention of tunneled, central catheter infection by antibiotic lock therapy using vancomycin and gentamycin. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl. 2007;18:239–47. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 137.Nori US, Manoharan A, Yee J, Besarab A. Comparison of low-dose gentamicin with minocycline as catheter lock solutions in the prevention of catheter-related bacteremia. Am J Kidney Dis. 2006;48:596–605. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2006.06.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 138.Saxena AK, Panhotra BR, Sundaram DS, et al. Tunneled catheters' outcome optimization among diabetics on dialysis through antibiotic-lock placement. Kidney Int. 2006;70:1629–35. doi: 10.1038/sj.ki.5001776. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 139.Randolph AG, Cook DJ, Gonzales CA, Andrew M. Benefit of heparin in central venous and pulmonary artery catheters: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Chest. 1998;113:165–71. doi: 10.1378/chest.113.1.165. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 140.Tager IB, Ginsberg MB, Ellis SE, et al. An epidemiologic study of the risks associated with peripheral intravenous catheters. Am J Epidemiol. 1983;118:839–51. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113702. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 141.Lai KK. Safety of prolonging peripheral cannula and i.v. tubing use from 72 hours to 96 hours. Am J Infect Control. 1998;26:66–70. doi: 10.1016/s0196-6553(98)70063-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 142.Van Donk P, Rickard CM, McGrail MR, Doolan G. Routine replacement versus clinical monitoring of peripheral intravenous catheters in a regional hospital in the home program: a randomized controlled trial. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009;30:915–7. doi: 10.1086/599776. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 143.Webster J, Clarke S, Paterson D, et al. Routine care of peripheral intravenous catheters versus clinically indicated replacement: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2008;337:a339. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a339. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 144.Webster J, Osborne S, Rickard C, Hall J. Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;3 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007798.pub2. CD007798. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 145.Boo NY, Wong NC, Zulkifli SS, Lye MS. Risk factors associated with umbilical vascular catheter-associated thrombosis in newborn infants. J Paediatr Child Health. 1999;35:460–5. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1754.1999.355392.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 146.Garland JS, Buck RK, Maloney P, et al. Comparison of 10% povidone-iodine and 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate for the prevention of peripheral intravenous catheter colonization in neonates: a prospective trial. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1995;14:510–6. doi: 10.1097/00006454-199506000-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 147.Krauss AN, Albert RF, Kannan MM. Contamination of umbilical catheters in the newborn infant. J Pediatr. 1970;77:965–9. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3476(70)80078-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 148.Landers S, Moise AA, Fraley JK, Smith EO, Baker CJ. Factors associated with umbilical catheter-related sepsis in neonates. Am J Dis Child. 1991;145:675–80. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.1991.02160060093028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 149.Cronin WA, Germanson TP, Donowitz LG. Intravascular catheter colonization and related bloodstream infection in critically ill neonates. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1990;11:301–8. doi: 10.1086/646175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 150.Miller KL, Coen PE, White WJ, Hurst WJ, Achey BE, Lang CM. Effectiveness of skin absorption of tincture of I in blocking radioiodine from the human thyroid gland. Health Phys. 1989;56:911–4. doi: 10.1097/00004032-198906000-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 151.Ankola PA, Atakent YS. Effect of adding heparin in very low concentration to the infusate to prolong the patency of umbilical artery catheters. Am J Perinatol. 1993;10:229–32. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-994726. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 152.David RJ, Merten DF, Anderson JC, Gross S. Prevention of umbilical artery catheter clots with heparinized infusates. Dev Pharmacol Ther. 1981;2:117–26. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 153.Horgan MJ, Bartoletti A, Polansky S, Peters JC, Manning TJ, Lamont BM. Effect of heparin infusates in umbilical arterial catheters on frequency of thrombotic complications. J Pediatr. 1987;111:774–8. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3476(87)80266-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 154.Fletcher MA, Brown DR, Landers S, Seguin J. Umbilical arterial catheter use: report of an audit conducted by the Study Group for Complications of Perinatal Care. Am J Perinatol. 1994;11:94–9. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-994564. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 155.Seguin J, Fletcher MA, Landers S, Brown D, Macpherson T. Umbilical venous catheterizations: audit by the Study Group for Complications of Perinatal Care. Am J Perinatol. 1994;11:67–70. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-994540. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 156.Loisel DB, Smith MM, MacDonald MG, Martin GR. Intravenous access in newborn infants: impact of extended umbilical venous catheter use on requirement for peripheral venous lines. J Perinatol. 1996;16:461–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 157.Martin C, Saux P, Papazian L, Gouin F. Long-term arterial cannulation in ICU patients using the radial artery or dorsalis pedis artery. Chest. 2001;119:901–6. doi: 10.1378/chest.119.3.901. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 158.Koh DB, Gowardman JR, Rickard CM, Robertson IK, Brown A. Prospective study of peripheral arterial catheter infection and comparison with concurrently sited central venous catheters. Crit Care Med. 2008;36:397–402. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318161f74b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 159.Rijnders BJ, Van Wijngaerden E, Wilmer A, Peetermans WE. Use of full sterile barrier precautions during insertion of arterial catheters: a randomized trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;36:743–8. doi: 10.1086/367936. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 160.Donowitz LG, Marsik FJ, Hoyt JW, Wenzel RP. Serratia marcescens bacteremia from contaminated pressure transducers. JAMA. 1979;242:1749–51. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 161.Luskin RL, Weinstein RA, Nathan C, Chamberlin WH, Kabins SA. Extended use of disposable pressure transducers. A bacteriologic evaluation. JAMA. 1986;255:916–20. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 162.Maki DG, Hassemer CA. Endemic rate of fluid contamination and related septicemia in arterial pressure monitoring. Am J Med. 1981;70:733–8. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(81)90604-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 163.Mermel LA, Maki DG. Epidemic bloodstream infections from hemodynamic pressure monitoring: signs of the times. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1989;10:47–53. doi: 10.1086/645960. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 164.Tenold R, Priano L, Kim K, Rourke B, Marrone T. Infection potential of nondisposable pressure transducers prepared prior to use. Crit Care Med. 1987;15:582–3. doi: 10.1097/00003246-198706000-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 165.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. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 166.Raad I, Umphrey J, Khan A, Truett LJ, Bodey GP. The duration of placement as a predictor of peripheral and pulmonary arterial catheter infections. J Hosp Infect. 1993;23:17–26. doi: 10.1016/0195-6701(93)90126-k. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 167.Thomas F, Burke JP, Parker J, et al. The risk of infection related to radial vs femoral sites for arterial catheterization. Crit Care Med. 1983;11:807–12. doi: 10.1097/00003246-198310000-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 168.Leroy O, Billiau V, Beuscart C, et al. Nosocomial infections associated with long-term radial artery cannulation. Intensive Care Med. 1989;15:241–6. doi: 10.1007/BF00271059. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 169.Fisher MC, Long SS, Roberts EM, Dunn JM, Balsara RK. Pseudomonas maltophilia bacteremia in children undergoing open heart surgery. JAMA. 1981;246:1571–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 170.Stamm WE, Colella JJ, Anderson RL, Dixon RE. Indwelling arterial catheters as a source of nosocomial bacteremia. An outbreak caused by Flavobacterium Species. N Engl J Med. 1975;292:1099–102. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197505222922105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 171.Weinstein RA, Emori TG, Anderson RL, Stamm WE. Pressure transducers as a source of bacteremia after open heart surgery. Report of an outbreak and guidelines for prevention. Chest. 1976;69:338–44. doi: 10.1378/chest.69.3.338. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 172.Shinozaki T, Deane RS, Mazuzan JE, Jr., Hamel AJ, Hazelton D. Bacterial contamination of arterial lines. A prospective study. JAMA. 1983;249:223–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 173.Solomon SL, Alexander H, Eley JW, et al. Nosocomial fungemia in neonates associated with intravascular pressure-monitoring devices. Pediatr Infect Dis. 1986;5:680–5. doi: 10.1097/00006454-198611000-00016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 174.Weems JJ, Jr., Chamberland ME, Ward J, Willy M, Padhye AA, Solomon SL. Candida parapsilosis fungemia associated with parenteral nutrition and contaminated blood pressure transducers. J Clin Microbiol. 1987;25:1029–32. doi: 10.1128/jcm.25.6.1029-1032.1987. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 175.Villarino ME, Jarvis WR, O'Hara C, Bresnahan J, Clark N. Epidemic of Serratia marcescens bacteremia in a cardiac intensive care unit. J Clin Microbiol. 1989;27:2433–6. doi: 10.1128/jcm.27.11.2433-2436.1989. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 176.Beck-Sague CM, Jarvis WR, Brook JH, et al. Epidemic bacteremia due to Acinetobacter baumannii in five intensive care units. Am J Epidemiol. 1990;132:723–33. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115714. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 177.Gillies D, Wallen MM, Morrison AL, Rankin K, Nagy SA, O'Riordan E. Optimal timing for intravenous administration set replacement. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2005 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003588.pub2. Issue 4. Art. No.: CD003588. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003588.pub2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 178.Sitges-Serra A, Linares J, Perez JL, Jaurrieta E, Lorente L. A randomized trial on the effect of tubing changes on hub contamination and catheter sepsis during parenteral nutrition. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1985;9:322–5. doi: 10.1177/0148607185009003322. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 179.Snydman DR, Donnelly-Reidy M, Perry LK, Martin WJ. Intravenous tubing containing burettes can be safely changed at 72 hour intervals. Infect Control. 1987;8:113–6. doi: 10.1017/s019594170006728x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 180.Maki DG, Botticelli JT, LeRoy ML, Thielke TS. Prospective study of replacing administration sets for intravenous therapy at 48- vs 72-hour intervals. 72 hours is safe and cost-effective. JAMA. 1987;258:1777–81. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 181.Josephson A, Gombert ME, Sierra MF, Karanfil LV, Tansino GF. The relationship between intravenous fluid contamination and the frequency of tubing replacement. Infect Control. 1985;6:367–70. doi: 10.1017/s0195941700063335. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 182.Melly MA, Meng HC, Schaffner W. Microbiol growth in lipid emulsions used in parenteral nutrition. Arch Surg. 1975;110:1479–81. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.1975.01360180049010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 183.Mershon J, Nogami W, Williams JM, Yoder C, Eitzen HE, Lemons JA. Bacterial/fungal growth in a combined parenteral nutrition solution. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1986;10:498–502. doi: 10.1177/0148607186010005498. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 184.Gilbert M, Gallagher SC, Eads M, Elmore MF. Microbial growth patterns in a total parenteral nutrition formulation containing lipid emulsion. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1986;10:494–7. doi: 10.1177/0148607186010005494. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 185.Maki DG, Martin WT. Nationwide epidemic of septicemia caused by contaminated infusion products. IV. Growth of microbial pathogens in fluids for intravenous infusions. J Infect Dis. 1975;131:267–72. doi: 10.1093/infdis/131.3.267. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 186.Bennett SN, McNeil MM, Bland LA, et al. Postoperative infections traced to contamination of an intravenous anesthetic, propofol. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:147–54. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199507203330303. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 187.Arduino MJ, Bland LA, Danzig LE, McAllister SK, Aguero SM. Microbiologic evaluation of needleless and needle-access devices. Am J Infect Control. 1997;25:377–80. doi: 10.1016/s0196-6553(97)90081-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 188.Brown JD, Moss HA, Elliott TS. The potential for catheter microbial contamination from a needleless connector. J Hosp Infect. 1997;36:181–9. doi: 10.1016/s0195-6701(97)90193-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 189.Cookson ST, Ihrig M, O'Mara EM, et al. Increased bloodstream infection rates in surgical patients associated with variation from recommended use and care following implementation of a needleless device. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1998;19:23–7. doi: 10.1086/647702. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 190.Seymour VM, Dhallu TS, Moss HA, Tebbs SE, Elliot TS. A prospective clinical study to investigate the microbial contamination of a needleless connector. J Hosp Infect. 2000;45:165–8. doi: 10.1053/jhin.2000.0726. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 191.Luebke MA, Arduino MJ, Duda DL, et al. Comparison of the microbial barrier properties of a needleless and a conventional needle-based intravenous access system. Am J Infect Control. 1998;26:437–41. doi: 10.1016/s0196-6553(98)70042-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 192.McDonald LC, Banerjee SN, Jarvis WR. Line-associated bloodstream infections in pediatric intensive-care-unit patients associated with a needleless device and intermittent intravenous therapy. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1998;19:772–7. doi: 10.1086/647722. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 193.Mendelson MH, Short LJ, Schechter CB, et al. Study of a needleless intermittent intravenous-access system for peripheral infusions: analysis of staff, patient, and institutional outcomes. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1998;19:401–6. doi: 10.1086/647839. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 194.Do AN, Ray BJ, Banerjee SN, et al. Bloodstream infection associated with needleless device use and the importance of infection-control practices in the home health care setting. J Infect Dis. 1999;179:442–8. doi: 10.1086/314592. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 195.Soothill JS, Bravery K, Ho A, Macqueen S, Collins J, Lock P. A fall in bloodstream infections followed a change to 2% chlorhexidine in 70% isopropanol for catheter connection antisepsis: a pediatric single center before/after study on a hemopoietic stem cell transplant ward. Am J Infect Control. 2009;37:626–30. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2009.03.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 196.Casey AL, Burnell S, Whinn H, Worthington T, Faroqui MH, Elliott TS. A prospective clinical trial to evaluate the microbial barrier of a needleless connector. J Hosp Infect. 2007;65:212–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2006.09.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 197.Rupp ME, Sholtz LA, Jourdan DR, et al. Outbreak of bloodstream infection temporally associated with the use of an intravascular needleless valve. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;44:1408–14. doi: 10.1086/517538. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 198.Salgado CD, Chinnes L, Paczesny TH, Cantey JR. Increased rate of catheter-related bloodstream infection associated with use of a needleless mechanical valve device at a long-term acute care hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28:684–8. doi: 10.1086/516800. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 199.Maragakis LL, Bradley KL, Song X, et al. Increased catheter-related bloodstream infection rates after the introduction of a new mechanical valve intravenous access port. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2006;27:67–70. doi: 10.1086/499166. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 200.Field K, McFarlane C, Cheng AC, et al. Incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infection among patients with a needleless, mechanical valve-based intravenous connector in an Australian hematology-oncology unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28:610–3. doi: 10.1086/516660. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 201.Costello JM, Morrow DF, Graham DA, Potter-Bynoe G, Sandora TJ, Laussen PC. Systematic intervention to reduce central line-associated bloodstream infection rates in a pediatric cardiac intensive care unit. Pediatrics. 2008;121:915–23. doi: 10.1542/peds.2007-1577. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 202.Frankel HL, Crede WB, Topal JE, Roumanis SA, Devlin MW, Foley AB. Use of corporate Six Sigma performance-improvement strategies to reduce incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections in a surgical ICU. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201:349–58. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2005.04.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 203.Galpern D, Guerrero A, Tu A, Fahoum B, Wise L. Effectiveness of a central line bundle campaign on line-associated infections in the intensive care unit. Surgery. 2008;144:492–5. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2008.06.004. discussion 495. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 204.McKee C, Berkowitz I, Cosgrove SE, et al. Reduction of catheter-associated bloodstream infections in pediatric patients: experimentation and reality. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2008;9:40–6. doi: 10.1097/01.PCC.0000299821.46193.A3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 205.Pronovost PJ, Berenholtz SM, Goeschel CA. Improving the quality of measurement and evaluation in quality improvement efforts. Am J Med Qual. 2008;23:143–6. doi: 10.1177/1062860607313146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Clinical Infectious Diseases: An Official Publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES