Literature DB >> 26935961

CATheter Infections in CHildren (CATCH): a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation comparing impregnated and standard central venous catheters in children.

Katie Harron1, Quen Mok2, Kerry Dwan3, Colin H Ridyard4, Tracy Moitt3, Michael Millar5, Padmanabhan Ramnarayan2, Shane M Tibby6, Berit Muller-Pebody7, Dyfrig A Hughes4, Carrol Gamble3, Ruth E Gilbert1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Impregnated central venous catheters (CVCs) are recommended for adults to reduce bloodstream infection (BSI) but not for children.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of impregnated compared with standard CVCs for reducing BSI in children admitted for intensive care.
DESIGN: Multicentre randomised controlled trial, cost-effectiveness analysis from a NHS perspective and a generalisability analysis and cost impact analysis.
SETTING: 14 English paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) in England. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged < 16 years admitted to a PICU and expected to require a CVC for ≥ 3 days.
INTERVENTIONS: Heparin-bonded, antibiotic-impregnated (rifampicin and minocycline) or standard polyurethane CVCs, allocated randomly (1 : 1 : 1). The intervention was blinded to all but inserting clinicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Time to first BSI sampled between 48 hours after randomisation and 48 hours after CVC removal. The following data were used in the trial: trial case report forms; hospital administrative data for 6 months pre and post randomisation; and national-linked PICU audit and laboratory data.
RESULTS: In total, 1859 children were randomised, of whom 501 were randomised prospectively and 1358 were randomised as an emergency; of these, 984 subsequently provided deferred consent for follow-up. Clinical effectiveness - BSIs occurred in 3.59% (18/502) of children randomised to standard CVCs, 1.44% (7/486) of children randomised to antibiotic CVCs and 3.42% (17/497) of children randomised to heparin CVCs. Primary analyses comparing impregnated (antibiotic and heparin CVCs) with standard CVCs showed no effect of impregnated CVCs [hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 1.34]. Secondary analyses showed that antibiotic CVCs were superior to standard CVCs (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.96) but heparin CVCs were not (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.03). Time to thrombosis, mortality by 30 days and minocycline/rifampicin resistance did not differ by CVC. Cost-effectiveness - heparin CVCs were not clinically effective and therefore were not cost-effective. The incremental cost of antibiotic CVCs compared with standard CVCs over a 6-month time horizon was £1160 (95% CI -£4743 to £6962), with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £54,057 per BSI avoided. There was considerable uncertainty in costs: antibiotic CVCs had a probability of 0.35 of being dominant. Based on index hospital stay costs only, antibiotic CVCs were associated with a saving of £97,543 per BSI averted. The estimated value of health-care resources associated with each BSI was £10,975 (95% CI -£2801 to £24,751). Generalisability and cost-impact - the baseline risk of BSI in 2012 for PICUs in England was 4.58 (95% CI 4.42 to 4.74) per 1000 bed-days. An estimated 232 BSIs could have been averted in 2012 using antibiotic CVCs. The additional cost of purchasing antibiotic CVCs for all children who require them (£36 per CVC) would be less than the value of resources associated with managing BSIs in PICUs with standard BSI rates of > 1.2 per 1000 CVC-days.
CONCLUSIONS: The primary outcome did not differ between impregnated and standard CVCs. However, antibiotic-impregnated CVCs significantly reduced the risk of BSI compared with standard and heparin CVCs. Adoption of antibiotic-impregnated CVCs could be beneficial even for PICUs with low BSI rates, although uncertainty remains whether or not they represent value for money to the NHS. Limitations - inserting clinicians were not blinded to allocation and a lower than expected event rate meant that there was limited power for head-to-head comparisons of each type of impregnation. Future work - adoption of impregnated CVCs in PICUs should be considered and could be monitored through linkage of electronic health-care data and clinical data on CVC use with laboratory surveillance data on BSI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01029717. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26935961      PMCID: PMC4809464          DOI: 10.3310/hta20180

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Technol Assess        ISSN: 1366-5278            Impact factor:   4.014


  10 in total

1.  Routine gastric residual volume measurement to guide enteral feeding in mechanically ventilated infants and children: the GASTRIC feasibility study.

Authors:  Lyvonne N Tume; Kerry Woolfall; Barbara Arch; Louise Roper; Elizabeth Deja; Ashley P Jones; Lynne Latten; Nazima Pathan; Helen Eccleson; Helen Hickey; Roger Parslow; Jennifer Preston; Anne Beissel; Izabela Andrzejewska; Chris Gale; Frederic V Valla; Jon Dorling
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 4.014

2.  Educating intensive care unit nurses to use central venous catheter infection prevention guidelines: effectiveness of an educational course.

Authors:  Sami Aloush
Journal:  J Res Nurs       Date:  2018-05-06

3.  Cost-effectiveness of home versus hospital management of children at onset of type 1 diabetes: the DECIDE randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Zoe McCarroll; Julia Townson; Timothy Pickles; John W Gregory; Rebecca Playle; Michael Robling; Dyfrig A Hughes
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-05-19       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Effect of impregnated central venous catheters on thrombosis in paediatric intensive care: Post-hoc analyses of the CATCH trial.

Authors:  Yue Wu; Caroline Fraser; Ruth Gilbert; Quen Mok
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-03-28       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Assessing value in health care: using an interpretive classification system to understand existing practices based on a systematic review.

Authors:  Brayan V Seixas; François Dionne; Tania Conte; Craig Mitton
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2019-08-13       Impact factor: 2.655

6.  Antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters for preventing neonatal bloodstream infection: the PREVAIL RCT.

Authors:  Ruth Gilbert; Michaela Brown; Rita Faria; Caroline Fraser; Chloe Donohue; Naomi Rainford; Alessandro Grosso; Ajay K Sinha; Jon Dorling; Jim Gray; Berit Muller-Pebody; Katie Harron; Tracy Moitt; William McGuire; Laura Bojke; Carrol Gamble; Sam J Oddie
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 4.106

7.  Cost-effectiveness study of early versus late parenteral nutrition in critically ill children (PEPaNIC): preplanned secondary analysis of a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Esther van Puffelen; Suzanne Polinder; Ilse Vanhorebeek; Pieter Jozef Wouters; Niek Bossche; Guido Peers; Sören Verstraete; Koen Felix Maria Joosten; Greet Van den Berghe; Sascha Cornelis Antonius Theodorus Verbruggen; Dieter Mesotten
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2018-01-15       Impact factor: 9.097

8.  Nurses' compliance with central line associated blood stream infection prevention guidelines.

Authors:  Sami M Aloush; Faris A Alsaraireh
Journal:  Saudi Med J       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 1.484

9.  Cost-Effectiveness of Pediatric Central Venous Catheters in the UK: A Secondary Publication from the CATCH Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Colin H Ridyard; Catrin O Plumpton; Ruth E Gilbert; Dyfrig A Hughes
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2017-09-19       Impact factor: 5.810

10.  Linking surveillance and clinical data for evaluating trends in bloodstream infection rates in neonatal units in England.

Authors:  Caroline Fraser; Berit Muller-Pebody; Ruth Blackburn; Jim Gray; Sam J Oddie; Ruth E Gilbert; Katie Harron
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-12-12       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.