BACKGROUND: With the rising use of midline catheters (MCs), validation of their safety is essential. Our study aimed to evaluate the incidence of bloodstream infections (BSIs) and other complications related to the use of MCs and central venous catheters (CVCs). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed at a tertiary care hospital in Detroit, Michigan, from March-September 2016. Adult patients with either MC or CVC were included. Outcomes assessed were catheter-related BSI (CRBSI), mechanical complications, hospital length of stay, readmission within 90 days of discharge (RA), and mortality. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS software. RESULTS: A total of 411 patients with MC and 282 patients with CVC were analyzed. More CRBSIs were seen in patients with CVC (10/282) than MC (1/411) (3.5% vs 0.2%, respectively; P = .0008). More mechanical complications were seen in patients with MC (2.6%) than CVC (0.3%; P = .03). Patients with CVC had a higher crude mortality (17.3% vs 5.3%; P < .0001), RA (58% vs 35%; P ≤ .0001), line-related RA (2.8% vs 0.2%; P = .0041), and transfer to intensive care unit after line placement (9% vs 5%; P = .01). CVC was a significant exposure for a composite of mortality, CRBSI, mechanical issues, thrombosis, and readmission because of a line-related complication (odds ratio, 3.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-5.8). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show use of MC is safer than CVC, but larger studies are needed to confirm our findings.
BACKGROUND: With the rising use of midline catheters (MCs), validation of their safety is essential. Our study aimed to evaluate the incidence of bloodstream infections (BSIs) and other complications related to the use of MCs and central venous catheters (CVCs). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed at a tertiary care hospital in Detroit, Michigan, from March-September 2016. Adult patients with either MC or CVC were included. Outcomes assessed were catheter-related BSI (CRBSI), mechanical complications, hospital length of stay, readmission within 90 days of discharge (RA), and mortality. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS software. RESULTS: A total of 411 patients with MC and 282 patients with CVC were analyzed. More CRBSIs were seen in patients with CVC (10/282) than MC (1/411) (3.5% vs 0.2%, respectively; P = .0008). More mechanical complications were seen in patients with MC (2.6%) than CVC (0.3%; P = .03). Patients with CVC had a higher crude mortality (17.3% vs 5.3%; P < .0001), RA (58% vs 35%; P ≤ .0001), line-related RA (2.8% vs 0.2%; P = .0041), and transfer to intensive care unit after line placement (9% vs 5%; P = .01). CVC was a significant exposure for a composite of mortality, CRBSI, mechanical issues, thrombosis, and readmission because of a line-related complication (odds ratio, 3.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-5.8). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show use of MC is safer than CVC, but larger studies are needed to confirm our findings.
Authors: Erica H Lescinskas; Barbara W Trautner; Sanjay Saint; John Colozzi; Katherine Evertsz; Vineet Chopra; Sarah L Krein Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2020-03-04 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Marcia Ryder; Robert A Gunther; Reid A Nishikawa; Marc Stranz; Britt M Meyer; Taylor A Spangler; Albert E Parker; Charles Sylvia Journal: Am J Health Syst Pharm Date: 2020-08-07 Impact factor: 2.637
Authors: Niccolò Buetti; Jonas Marschall; Marci Drees; Mohamad G Fakih; Lynn Hadaway; Lisa L Maragakis; Elizabeth Monsees; Shannon Novosad; Naomi P O'Grady; Mark E Rupp; Joshua Wolf; Deborah Yokoe; Leonard A Mermel Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2022-04-19 Impact factor: 6.520