Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Systematic Review of Emergency Department Central Venous and Arterial Catheter Infection|
|Authors:||LeMaster, Christopher H.;Agrawal, Ashish T.;Hou, Peter Chuanyi;Schuur, Jeremiah D|
|subject:||central venous catheter;central line;Medical Science;Infectious Diseases;central line-associated bloodstream infection;catheter-associated bloodstream infection;catheter-related bloodstream infection|
|Description:||Background: There is an extensive critical care literature for central venous catheter and arterial line infection, duration of catheterization, and compliance with infection control procedures. The emergency medicine literature, however, contains very little data on central venous catheters and arterial lines. As emergency medicine practice continues to incorporate greater numbers of critical care procedures such as central venous catheter placement, infection control is becoming a greater issue. Aims: We performed a systematic review of studies reporting baseline data of ED-placed central venous catheters and arterial lines using multiple search methods. Methods: Two reviewers independently assessed included studies using explicit criteria, including the use of EDplaced invasive lines, the presence of central line-associated bloodstream infection, and excluded case reports and review articles. Finding significant heterogeneity among studies, we performed a qualitative assessment. Results: Our search produced 504 abstracts, of which 15 studies were evaluated, and 4 studies were excluded because of quality issues leaving 11 cohort studies. Four studies calculated infection rates, ranging 0–24.1/1,000 catheter-days for central line-associated and 0–32.8/1,000 catheter-days for central line-related bloodstream infection. Average duration of catheterization was 4.9 days (range 1.6–14.1 days), and compliance with infection control procedures was 33–96.5%. The data were too poor to compare emergency department to in-hospital catheter infection rates. Conclusions: The existing data for emergency department placed invasive lines are poor, but suggest they are a source of infection, remain in place for a significant period of time, and that adherence to maximum barrier precautions is poor. Obtaining accurate rates of infection and comparison between emergency department and inpatient lines requires prospective study.|
|Standard no:||LeMaster, Christopher H., Ashish T. Agrawal, Peter Hou, and Jeremiah D. Schuur. 2010. Systematic review of emergency department central venous and arterial catheter infection. International Journal of Emergency Medicine 3(4): 409-423.|
|Appears in Collections:||HMS Scholarly Articles|
Files in This Item:
Click on the URI links for accessing contents.
Items in HannanDL are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.