1887

Abstract

. Totally implanted venous access ports (TIVAPs) are widely used in patients receiving long-term chemotherapy but may lead to serious complications such as catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs). Diagnosis of CRBSI requires catheter culture, but there is no consensus on microbiological culture methods to be adopted.

. To compare three different procedures to recover bacterial cells from colonized catheters and to determine which section of the TIVAP (i.e. tip, septum, reservoir) is the probable source of infection. To investigate the correlation between blood culture results and TIVAP culture in order to get further evidence about the utility of differential time to positivity (DTP) as a diagnostic tool before TIVAP removal.

Comparisons of different diagnostic procedures for catheter culture have been rarely reported for TIVAPs. We hypothesized that the optimization of methods to recover micro-organisms from different parts of TIVAPs may help to decrease the number of false-negative results in the diagnosis of TIVAP-related bloodstream infections.

. A total of 53 TIVAPs removed because of suspected infection (=36) or end of use (=17) were evaluated. The reservoir, the septum and the catheter tip were separated and subjected to different treatments for the recovery of adherent micro-organisms: (a) flushing of the catheter lumen, (b) sonication and flushing, (c) treatment with dithiothreitol and flushing. The three methods were also evaluated in an catheter infection model with . Culture results were compared to those obtained from paired blood cultures drawn from TIVAP and peripheral vein and to the relative DTP.

. The results obtained demonstrated that vigorous flushing/vortexing of the catheter lumen/septum, allows the recovery of a number of micro-organisms comparable to that of more complex procedures such as sonication or chemical treatment. Among 24 positive TIVAP-cultures, nine were tip-culture negative, whereas the corresponding reservoirs and septa were culture positive. A good correlation was observed between DTP and TIVAP cultures (<0.001).

. The results support the evidence that sending the port reservoir in addition to the catheter tip to the microbiology laboratory may increase the sensitivity and the accuracy of CRBSI diagnosis. Moreover, when a TIVAP-related infection is suspected, DTP is a useful diagnostic tool to decide between device removal or a more conservative approach.

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • Esingül Kaya , Università di Pisa , (Award PhD Course in Clinical and Translational Sciences)
  • Giovanna Batoni , Università di Pisa , (Award PRA_2017_18)
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001263
2020-10-16
2020-10-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Lebeaux D, Fernández-Hidalgo N, Chauhan A, Lee S, Ghigo JM et al. Management of infections related to totally implantable venous-access ports: challenges and perspectives. Lancet Infect Dis 2014; 14:146–159 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Machat S, Eisenhuber E, Pfarl G, Stübler J, Koelblinger C et al. Complications of central venous port systems: a pictorial review. Insights Imaging 2019; 10:86 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Shim J, Seo TS, Song MG, Cha IH, Kim JS et al. Incidence and risk factors of infectious complications related to implantable venous-access ports. Korean J Radiol 2014; 15:494–500 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Narducci F, Jean-Laurent M, Boulanger L, El Bédoui S, Mallet Y et al. Totally implantable venous access port systems and risk factors for complications: a one-year prospective study in a cancer centre. Eur J Surg Oncol 2011; 37:913–918 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 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][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 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][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Gominet M, Compain F, Beloin C, Lebeaux D. Central venous catheters and biofilms: where do we stand in 2017?. APMIS 2017; 125:365–375 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Kaya E, Grassi L, Benedetti A, Maisetta G, Pileggi C et al. In vitro interaction of Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms with human peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2020; 10:187 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 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][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Maki DG, Weise CE, Sarafin HW. A semiquantitative culture method for identifying intravenous-catheter-related infection. N Engl J Med Overseas Ed 1977; 296:1305–1309 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Pinelli F, Cecero E, Degl'Innocenti D, Selmi V, Giua R et al. Infection of totally implantable venous access devices: a review of the literature. J Vasc Access 2018; 19:230–242 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Slobbe L, El Barzouhi A, Boersma E, Rijnders BJA. Comparison of the roll plate method to the sonication method to diagnose catheter colonization and bacteremia in patients with long-term tunnelled catheters: a randomized prospective study. J Clin Microbiol 2009; 47:885–888 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Drago L, Romanò CL, Mattina R, Signori V, De Vecchi E. Does dithiothreitol improve bacterial detection from infected prostheses? A pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470:2915–2925 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. De Vecchi E, Bottagisio M, Bortolin M, Toscano M, Lovati AB et al. Improving the bacterial recovery by using dithiothreitol with aerobic and anaerobic broth in biofilm-related prosthetic and joint infections. Adv Exp Med Biol 2017; 973:31–39 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Longuet P, Douard MC, Arlet G, Molina JM, Benoit C et al. Venous access port-related bacteremia in patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or cancer: the reservoir as a diagnostic and therapeutic tool. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 32:1776–1783 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Bouza E, Martín-Rabadán P, Echenagusia A, Camúñez F, Rodríguez-Rosales G et al. Diagnosis of venous access port colonization requires cultures from multiple sites: should guidelines be amended?. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2014; 78:162–167 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Magiorakos A-P, Srinivasan A, Carey RB, Carmeli Y, Falagas ME et al. Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: an international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clin Microbiol Infect 2012; 18:268–281 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Brancatisano FL, Maisetta G, Di Luca M, Esin S, Bottai D et al. Inhibitory effect of the human liver-derived antimicrobial peptide hepcidin 20 on biofilms of polysaccharide intercellular adhesin (PIA)-positive and PIA-negative strains of Staphylococcus epidermidis. Biofouling 2014; 30:435–446 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Raad I, Costerton W, Sabharwal U, Sacilowski M, Anaissie E et al. Ultrastructural analysis of indwelling vascular catheters: a quantitative relationship between luminal colonization and duration of placement. J Infect Dis 1993; 168:400–407 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Sherertz RJ, Heard SO, Raad II. Diagnosis of triple-lumen catheter infection: comparison of roll plate, sonication, and flushing methodologies. J Clin Microbiol 1997; 35:641–646 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Guembe M, Martín-Rabadán P, Cruces R, Pérez Granda MJ, Bouza E. Roll-plate alone does not demonstrate colonization in silicone neonatal catheters. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2016; 35:351–353 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Erb S, Frei R, Schregenberger K, Dangel M, Nogarth D et al. Sonication for diagnosis of catheter-related infection is not better than traditional roll-plate culture: a prospective cohort study with 975 central venous catheters. Clin Infect Dis 2014; 59:541–544 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Guembe M, Martín-Rabadán P, Cruces R, Pérez Granda MJ, Bouza E. Sonicating multi-lumen sliced catheter tips after the roll-plate technique improves the detection of catheter colonization in adults. J Microbiol Methods 2016; 122:20–22 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Guembe M, Martín-Rabadán P, Echenagusia A, Camúñez F, Rodríguez-Rosales G et al. How should long-term tunneled central venous catheters be managed in microbiology laboratories in order to provide an accurate diagnosis of colonization?. J Clin Microbiol 2012; 50:1003–1007 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Drago L, Signori V, De Vecchi E, Vassena C, Palazzi E et al. Use of dithiothreitol to improve the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infections. J Orthop Res 2013; 31:1694–1699 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Di Luca M, Navari E, Esin S, Menichini M, Barnini S et al. Detection of biofilms in biopsies from chronic rhinosinusitis patients: in vitro biofilm forming ability and antimicrobial susceptibility testing in biofilm mode of growth of isolated bacteria. Adv Exp Med Biol 2018; 1057:1–27 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Douard MC, Arlet G, Longuet P, Troje C, Rouveau M et al. Diagnosis of venous access port-related infections. Clin Infect Dis 1999; 29:1197–1202 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Lebeaux D, Larroque B, Gellen-Dautremer J, Leflon-Guibout V, Dreyer C et al. Clinical outcome after a totally implantable venous access port-related infection in cancer patients: a prospective study and review of the literature. Medicine 2012; 91:309–318 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Lorente L, Martín MM, Vidal P, Rebollo S, Ostabal MI et al. Working group on catheter related infection suspicion management of GTEIS/SEMICYUC. Should central venous catheter be systematically removed in patients with suspected catheter related infection?. Crit Care 2014; 18:564
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Timsit J-F, 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][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Raad I, Hanna HA, Alakech B, Chatzinikolaou I, Johnson MM et al. Differential time to positivity: a useful method for diagnosing catheter-related bloodstream infections. Ann Intern Med 2004; 140:18–25 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Chadwick PR, Ryan K, Teubner A, Bond A, Abraham A et al. Sensitivity of differential time to positivity compared to pour plates for diagnosing catheter-related blood stream infection: an evaluation in patients with chronic intestinal failure. Clin Nutr 2020; 39:33161–33169 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 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][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Bouza E, Alcalá L, Muñoz P, Martin-Rabadán P, Guembe M et al. GEIDI and the COMIC study groups. Can microbiologists help to assess catheter involvement in candicaemic patients before removal?. Clin Microbiol Infect 2013; 19:E129–E135
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Orihuela-Martín J, Rodríguez-Núñez O, Morata L, Cardozo C, Puerta-Alcalde P et al. Performance of differential time to positivity as a routine diagnostic test for catheter-related bloodstream infections: a single-centre experience. Clin Microbiol Infect 2020; 26:383.e1–38383 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001263
Loading
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001263
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

PDF
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