Ricardo Silveira Yamaguchi1,2,3, Danilo Teixeira Noritomi4, Natalia Viu Degaspare4,5,6, Gabriela Ortega Cisternas Muñoz4,5,6, Ana Paula Matos Porto4, Silvia Figueiredo Costa7, Otavio T Ranzani4,8,9. 1. Americas Medical Service, Americas Research and Education Institute, Rua Azevedo Macedo, 92, São Paulo, São Paulo, 04013-060, Brazil. ryamaguchi@prestadores.amil.com.br. 2. Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Hospital da Luz Vila Mariana, São Paulo, Brazil. ryamaguchi@prestadores.amil.com.br. 3. Department of Pediatrics, Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Hospital das Clínicas, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. ryamaguchi@prestadores.amil.com.br. 4. Americas Medical Service, Americas Research and Education Institute, Rua Azevedo Macedo, 92, São Paulo, São Paulo, 04013-060, Brazil. 5. Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Hospital da Luz Vila Mariana, São Paulo, Brazil. 6. Department of Pediatrics, Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Hospital das Clínicas, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 7. Laboratory of Bacteriology (LIM 54), Department of Infectious Diseases, Medical School, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 8. Pulmonary Division, Heart Institute, Hospital das Clínicas, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 9. Department of Pulmonology, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, IDIBAPS, CIBERES, Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) is an important cause of complications in paediatric intensive care units (PICUs). Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) could be an alternative to central venous catheters (CVCs) and the effect of PICCs compared with CVCs on CLABSI prevention is unknown in PICUs. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate whether PICCs were associated with a protective effect for CLABSI when compared to CVCs in critically ill children. METHODS: We have carried out a retrospective multicentre study in four PICUs in São Paulo, Brazil. We included patients aged 0-14 years, who needed a CVC or PICC during a PICU stay from January 2013 to December 2015. Our primary endpoint was CLABSI up to 30 days after catheter placement. We defined CLABSI based on the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's National Healthcare Safety Networks (NHSN) 2015 surveillance definitions. To account for potential confounders, we used propensity scores with inverse probability weighting. RESULTS: A total of 1660 devices (922 PICCs and 738 CVCs) in 1255 children were included. The overall CLABSI incidence was 2.28 (95% CI 1.70-3.07)/1000 catheter-days. After covariate adjustment using propensity scores, CVCs were associated with higher risk of CLABSI (adjHR 2.20, 95% CI 1.05-4.61; p = 0.037) compared with PICCs. In a sensitivity analysis, CVCs remained associated with higher risk of CLABSI (adjHR 2.18, 95% CI 1.02-4.64; p = 0.044) after adding place of insertion and use of parenteral nutrition to the model as a time-dependent variable. CONCLUSIONS: PICC should be an alternative to CVC in the paediatric intensive care setting for CLABSI prevention.
PURPOSE: Central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) is an important cause of complications in paediatric intensive care units (PICUs). Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) could be an alternative to central venous catheters (CVCs) and the effect of PICCs compared with CVCs on CLABSI prevention is unknown in PICUs. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate whether PICCs were associated with a protective effect for CLABSI when compared to CVCs in critically ill children. METHODS: We have carried out a retrospective multicentre study in four PICUs in São Paulo, Brazil. We included patients aged 0-14 years, who needed a CVC or PICC during a PICU stay from January 2013 to December 2015. Our primary endpoint was CLABSI up to 30 days after catheter placement. We defined CLABSI based on the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's National Healthcare Safety Networks (NHSN) 2015 surveillance definitions. To account for potential confounders, we used propensity scores with inverse probability weighting. RESULTS: A total of 1660 devices (922 PICCs and 738 CVCs) in 1255 children were included. The overall CLABSI incidence was 2.28 (95% CI 1.70-3.07)/1000 catheter-days. After covariate adjustment using propensity scores, CVCs were associated with higher risk of CLABSI (adjHR 2.20, 95% CI 1.05-4.61; p = 0.037) compared with PICCs. In a sensitivity analysis, CVCs remained associated with higher risk of CLABSI (adjHR 2.18, 95% CI 1.02-4.64; p = 0.044) after adding place of insertion and use of parenteral nutrition to the model as a time-dependent variable. CONCLUSIONS: PICC should be an alternative to CVC in the paediatric intensive care setting for CLABSI prevention.
Entities:
Keywords:
Central venous line; Infection; Paediatric intensive care unit; Peripherally inserted central catheter
Authors: Stephen W Patrick; Alison Tse Kawai; Ken Kleinman; Robert Jin; Louise Vaz; Charlene Gay; William Kassler; Don Goldmann; Grace M Lee Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2014-09-08 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Jonas Marschall; Leonard A Mermel; Mohamad Fakih; Lynn Hadaway; Alexander Kallen; Naomi P O'Grady; Ann Marie Pettis; Mark E Rupp; Thomas Sandora; Lisa L Maragakis; Deborah S Yokoe Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Jeffrey E Nowak; Richard J Brilli; Michael R Lake; Karen W Sparling; John Butcher; Marion Schulte; Derek S Wheeler Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Thomas W Conlon; Adam S Himebauch; Anne Marie Cahill; Blair M Kraus; Chinonyerem R Madu; Mark D Weber; Carol A Czajka; Ruby L Baker; Torron M Brinkley; Melanie D Washington; Anne Marie Frey; Eileen M Nelson; Cara T Jefferies; Charlotte Z Woods-Hill; Heather A Wolfe; Daniela H Davis Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 3.624