4.4 Article

Prevalence of the use of central venous access devices within and outside of the intensive care unit. Results of a survey among hospitals in the prevention epicenter program of the centers for disease control and prevention

期刊

INFECTION CONTROL AND HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 24, 期 12, 页码 942-945

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/502163

关键词

-

资金

  1. ODCDC CDC HHS [UR8CCU-315346-04] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of central venous (CVC) use among patients both within and outside the ICU setting. DESIGN: A 1-day prevalence survey of CVC use among adult inpatients at six medical centers participating in the Prevention Epicenter Program of the CDC. Using a standardized form, observers at each Epicenter performed a hospital-wide survey, collecting data on CVC use. SETTING: Inpatient wards and ICUs of six large urban teaching hospitals. RESULTS: At the six medical centers, 2,459 patients were surveyed; 29% had CVCs. Among the hospitals, from 43% to 80% (mean, 59.3%) of ICU patients and from 7% to 39% (mean, 23.7%) of non-ICU patients had CVCs. Despite the lower rate of CVC use on non-ICU wards, the actual number of CVCs outside the ICUs exceeded that of the ICUs. Most catheters were inserted in the subclavian (55916) or jugular (22%) site, with femoral (6%) and peripheral (15916) sites less commonly used. The jugular (33.0% vs 16.6%; P <.001) and femoral (13.8% vs 2.7%; P <.001) sites were more frequently used in ICU patients, whereas peripherally inserted (19.9% vs 5.9%; P <.001) and subclavian (60.7% vs 47.3%; P <.001) catheters were more commonly used in non-ICU patients. CONCLUSIONS: Current surveillance and infection control efforts to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with bloodstream infections concentrate on the high-risk ICU patients with CVCs. Our survey demonstrated that two-thirds of identified CVCs were not in ICU patients and suggests that more efforts should be directed to patients with CVCs who are outside the ICU.

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

4.4
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