1887

Abstract

Introduction. Central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) adversely affect patients’ hospitalization.

Aim. We compared semiquantitative roll plate (SQRP) and differential time to positivity (DTP) culture methods in diagnosing CLABSIs.

Methodology. A retrospective study was conducted in an intensive care unit (ICU) from January 2013 to August 2014. All ICU patients with suspected CLABSIs were included. Blood cultures were taken, while central venous catheter (CVC) tips were cultured using the roll-tip method. DTP was considered positive if CVC lumen blood cultures became positive at least 2 h prior to concurrently drawn peripheral blood cultures with an identical micro-organism. SQRP method was considered positive when ≥15 c.f.u. of a micro-organism identical to that of blood cultures grew. Measures of diagnostic accuracy were calculated.

Results. SQRP displayed high sensitivity (94.7 %), while DTP showed high specificity (82.5 %). SQRP combined with DTP displayed 100  % sensitivity and negative predictive value.

Conclusion. SQRP and DTP methods should be evaluated in combination.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000029
2019-06-05
2019-08-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/acmi/1/4/acmi000029.html?itemId=/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000029&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Frasca D, Dahyot-Fizelier C, Mimoz O. Prevention of central venous catheter-related infection in the intensive care unit. Crit Care 2010;14:212 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Timsit JF, Rupp M, Bouza E, Chopra V, Kärpänen T et al. A state of the art review on optimal practices to prevent, recognize, and manage complications associated with intravascular devices in the critically ill. Intensive Care Med 2018;44:742–759 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Horan TC, Gaynes RP. Surveillance of nosocomial infections. Appendix A-1: CDC definitions of nosocomial infections In Mayhall CG. editor Hospital Epidemiology an Infection Control, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Willkins; 2004; pp1659–1702
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Siempos II, Kopterides P, Tsangaris I, Dimopoulou I, Armaganidis AE. Impact of catheter-related bloodstream infections on the mortality of critically ill patients: a meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 2009;37:2283–2289 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Nuckols TK, Keeler E, Morton SC, Anderson L, Doyle B et al. Economic evaluation of quality improvement interventions for bloodstream infections related to central catheters: a systematic review. JAMA Intern Med 2016;176:1843–1854 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Lucet JC, Bouadma L, Zahar JR, Schwebel C, Geffroy A et al. Infectious risk associated with arterial catheters compared with central venous catheters. Crit Care Med 2010;38:1030–1035 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Brun-Buisson C. Suspected central venous catheter-associated infection: can the catheter be safely retained?. Intensive Care Med 2004;30:1005–1007 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Mermel LA, Allon M, Bouza E, Craven DE, Flynn P et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of intravascular catheter-related infection: 2009 update by the infectious diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2009;49:1–45 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Catton JA, Dobbins BM, Kite P, Wood JM, Eastwood K et al. In situ diagnosis of intravascular catheter-related bloodstream infection: a comparison of quantitative culture, differential time to positivity, and endoluminal brushing. Crit Care Med 2005;33:787–791 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Maki DG, Weise CE, Sarafin HW. A semiquantitative culture method for identifying intravenous-catheter-related infection. N Engl J Med 1977;296:1305–1309 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. CLSI Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing, Twenty-Fourth Informational Supplement M100–S24. USA: CLSI, Wayne, PA; 2014
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Blot F, Nitenberg G, Chachaty E, Raynard B, Germann N et al. Diagnosis of catheter-related bacteraemia: a prospective comparison of the time to positivity of hub-blood versus peripheral-blood cultures. Lancet 1999;354:1071–1077 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Šimundić AM. Measures of diagnostic accuracy: basic definitions. EJIFCC 2009;19:203–211
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bouza E, Alvarado N, Alcalá L, Pérez MJ, Rincón C et al. A randomized and prospective study of 3 procedures for the diagnosis of catheter-related bloodstream infection without catheter withdrawal. Clin Infect Dis 2007;44:820–826 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Freire MP, Pierrotti LC, Zerati AE, Benites L, da Motta-Leal Filho JM et al. Role of lock therapy for long-term catheter-related infections by multidrug-resistant bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2018;62: [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Gowardman JR, Jeffries P, Lassig-Smith M, Stuart J, Jarrett P et al. A comparative assessment of two conservative methods for the diagnosis of catheter-related infection in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med 2013;39:109–116 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Rijnders BJ, Verwaest C, Peetermans WE, Wilmer A, Vandecasteele S et al. Difference in time to positivity of hub-blood versus nonhub-blood cultures is not useful for the diagnosis of catheter-related bloodstream infection in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 2001;29:1399–1403 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bouza E, Alvarado N, Alcalá L, Sánchez-Conde M, Pérez MJ et al. A prospective, randomized, and comparative study of 3 different methods for the diagnosis of intravascular catheter colonization. Clin Infect Dis 2005;40:1096–1100 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Safdar N, Fine JP, Maki DG. Meta-analysis: methods for diagnosing intravascular device-related bloodstream infection. Ann Intern Med 2005;142:451–466 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000029
Loading
/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000029
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error