Arterial catheter outcomes in intensive care: An analysis of 1117 patients.

Samantha Keogh, Emily Larsen, Amanda Corley, Mari Takashima, Nicole Marsh, Melannie Edwards, Heather Reynolds, Jayesh Dhanani, Fiona Coyer, Kevin B Laupland, Claire M Rickard
{"title":"Arterial catheter outcomes in intensive care: An analysis of 1117 patients.","authors":"Samantha Keogh, Emily Larsen, Amanda Corley, Mari Takashima, Nicole Marsh, Melannie Edwards, Heather Reynolds, Jayesh Dhanani, Fiona Coyer, Kevin B Laupland, Claire M Rickard","doi":"10.1016/j.idh.2024.07.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Access to arterial circulation through arterial catheters (ACs) is crucial for monitoring and decision-making in intensive care units (ICU) but carries the risk of complications including bloodstream infection (BSI).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a secondary analysis of data from four randomised controlled trials in Australian ICUs, investigating the efficacy of different AC interventions. De-identified data were combined into a single dataset, and per-patient outcomes analysed. The primary outcome was AC-BSI, defined as laboratory confirmed bloodstream infection (LCBI) type 1 or 2, with a concurrent local infection. All-cause AC failure was defined as any unplanned removal. AC infection and failure were reported as rates per 1000 catheter days and hours.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data from 1117 adult patients were analysed. Mean age was 58.8 years (±16.6); and 41% (n = 462) were male. Median AC dwell time was 110 h (IQR 28.3-168.0). There was one case (<0.1%; 0.18/1000 catheter days [95% CI 0.03-1.29]) of AC-BSI, and 14 cases of LCBI (1%; 13 LCBI-1 and 1 LCBI-2; 2.54/1000 catheter days [95% CI 1.51-4.30]). LCBI were most commonly Enterococcus faecalis; Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae. There were four cases of local infection (<1%; 0.73/1000 catheter days [95% CI 0.27-1.94]). Overall AC failure rate was 13% (n = 146) or 26.53/1000 catheter days (95% CI 22.56-31.20).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study identified a relatively low incidence of complications. This is likely reflective of poor monitoring of ACs in intensive care. Better surveillance and a rigorous prospective evaluation of AC outcomes is required to understand the true risk ACs pose to critically ill patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":94040,"journal":{"name":"Infection, disease & health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infection, disease & health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idh.2024.07.006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Access to arterial circulation through arterial catheters (ACs) is crucial for monitoring and decision-making in intensive care units (ICU) but carries the risk of complications including bloodstream infection (BSI).

Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from four randomised controlled trials in Australian ICUs, investigating the efficacy of different AC interventions. De-identified data were combined into a single dataset, and per-patient outcomes analysed. The primary outcome was AC-BSI, defined as laboratory confirmed bloodstream infection (LCBI) type 1 or 2, with a concurrent local infection. All-cause AC failure was defined as any unplanned removal. AC infection and failure were reported as rates per 1000 catheter days and hours.

Results: Data from 1117 adult patients were analysed. Mean age was 58.8 years (±16.6); and 41% (n = 462) were male. Median AC dwell time was 110 h (IQR 28.3-168.0). There was one case (<0.1%; 0.18/1000 catheter days [95% CI 0.03-1.29]) of AC-BSI, and 14 cases of LCBI (1%; 13 LCBI-1 and 1 LCBI-2; 2.54/1000 catheter days [95% CI 1.51-4.30]). LCBI were most commonly Enterococcus faecalis; Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae. There were four cases of local infection (<1%; 0.73/1000 catheter days [95% CI 0.27-1.94]). Overall AC failure rate was 13% (n = 146) or 26.53/1000 catheter days (95% CI 22.56-31.20).

Conclusion: This study identified a relatively low incidence of complications. This is likely reflective of poor monitoring of ACs in intensive care. Better surveillance and a rigorous prospective evaluation of AC outcomes is required to understand the true risk ACs pose to critically ill patients.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重症监护中动脉导管的效果:对 1117 名患者的分析。
背景:通过动脉导管(AC)进入动脉循环对重症监护病房(ICU)的监测和决策至关重要,但也存在包括血流感染(BSI)在内的并发症风险:我们对澳大利亚重症监护病房的四项随机对照试验数据进行了二次分析,研究了不同 AC 干预措施的疗效。去身份化数据合并成一个数据集,并对每位患者的结果进行分析。主要结果是 AC-BSI,定义为实验室确诊的 1 型或 2 型血流感染(LCBI),同时伴有局部感染。全因 AC 失败定义为任何非计划性切除。导管感染率和失败率以每 1000 个导管天数和小时数为单位进行报告:结果:分析了 1117 名成年患者的数据。平均年龄为 58.8 岁 (±16.6);男性占 41% (n = 462)。中位 AC 停留时间为 110 小时(IQR 28.3-168.0)。有一个病例(结论:这项研究发现并发症的发生率相对较低。这可能反映出重症监护中对空调的监控不力。要了解空调对重症患者造成的真正风险,需要对空调的结果进行更好的监控和严格的前瞻性评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Arterial catheter outcomes in intensive care: An analysis of 1117 patients. Ventilator-associated pneumonia risk factors in patients with severe COVID-19 in southern Brazil: A retrospective observational study. Prediction of multidrug-resistant bacteria (MDR) hospital-acquired infection (HAI) and colonisation: A systematic review. Sustainability and novel technologies to improve environmental cleaning in healthcare - Implications and considerations. Assessment of peripheral venous catheters microbiota and its association with phlebitis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1