Systematic Review of Emergency Department Central Venous and Arterial Catheter Infection

DSpace/Manakin Repository

Systematic Review of Emergency Department Central Venous and Arterial Catheter Infection

Citable link to this page

. . . . . .

Title: Systematic Review of Emergency Department Central Venous and Arterial Catheter Infection
Author: LeMaster, Christopher H.; Agrawal, Ashish T.; Hou, Peter Chuanyi; Schuur, Jeremiah D

Note: Order does not necessarily reflect citation order of authors.

Citation: 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.
Full Text & Related Files:
Abstract: 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.
Published Version: doi://10.1007/s12245-010-0225-5
Other Sources: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3047889/pdf/
Terms of Use: This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAA
Citable link to this page: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:8296047

Show full Dublin Core record

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

 
 

Search DASH


Advanced Search
 
 

Submitters