4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Prevention of intravascular catheter-related infection with newer chlorhexidine-silver sulfadiazine-coated catheters: a randomized controlled trial

期刊

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
卷 30, 期 5, 页码 837-843

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-004-2221-9

关键词

intensive care; catheter-associated infection; bacteraemia; prevention; antiseptics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. The indication of antiseptic-coated catheters remains debated. Objective. To test the ability of the new generation of chlorhexidine-silver and sulfadiazine-coated catheters, with enhanced antiseptic coating, to reduce the risk of central venous catheter (CVC)-related infection in ICU patients. Design. Multicentre randomized double-blind trial. Patients and setting. A total of 397 patients from 14 ICUs of university hospitals in France. Intervention. Patients were randomized to receive an antiseptic-coated catheter (ACC) or a standard non-coated catheter (NCC). Measurements. Incidence of CVC-related infection. Results. Of 367 patients having a successful catheter insertion, 363 were analysed (175 NCC and 188 ACC). Patients had one (NCC=162, ACC=180) or more (NCC=13, ACC=11) CVC inserted. The two groups were similar for insertion site [subclavian (64 vs 69)] or jugular (36 vs 31%)], and type of catheters (single-lumen 18 vs 18%; double-lumen 82 vs 82%), and mean (median) duration of catheterisation [12.0+/-11.7 (9) vs 10.5+/-8.8 (8) days in the NCC and ACC groups, respectively]. Significant colonisation of the catheter occurred in 23 (13.1%) and 7 (3.7%) patients, respectively, in the NCC and ACC groups (11 vs 3.6 per 1000 catheter-days; p=0.01); CVC-related infection (bloodstream infection) occurred in 10 (5) and 4 (3) patients in the NCC and CC groups, respectively (5.2 vs 2 per 1000 catheter days; p=0.10). Conclusions. In the context of a low baseline infection rate, ACC were associated with a significant reduction of catheter colonisation and a trend to reduction of infection episodes, but not of bloodstream infection.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据