Journal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada = Journal officiel de l'Association pour la microbiologie medicale et l'infectiologie Canada · 2025
Clinician survey for the management of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection: Catheter retention versus replacement.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Buskandar Fahad, Fowler Robert A, Johnstone Jennie, Lee Todd C, MacFadden Derek R, McDonald Emily G, Oliver Matthew J, Ong Sean W X, Paterson David, Pinto Ruxandra, Rishu Asgar, Rogers Ben, Yahav Dafna, Daneman Nick
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: When bloodstream infection (BSI) occurs in patients with a central venous catheter (CVC), the catheter may be the original source (catheter-related, CR) or may become a source for persistent infection. BSI should prompt an evaluation of CVC necessity, but there are challenges associated with CVC replacement.
METHODS: An online multinational survey was sent to professional societies of specialties involved in treating patients who have BSI and a CVC. Clinicians were asked to choose retention versus replacement for scenarios involving different CVC types, infection sources, and pathogens. Additional questions explored central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) diagnosis, management, and willingness to enrol patients in a randomized controlled trial (RCT).
RESULTS: A total of 220 physicians responded. For peripherally inserted central catheter-related BSI, most favoured CVC replacement, although there was variability across pathogens (Candida spp 100%, Staphlococcus aureus 99%; Pseudomonas aeruginosa 94%; Enterococcus spp 75%; Enterobacterales 66%; coagulase-negative staphylococci 58%). For tunnelled CVC-related BSI, replacement recommendations also varied (Candida 99%; S. aureus 95%; P. aeruginosa 87%; Enterococcus spp 58%; Enterobacterales 44%; coagulase-negative staphylococci 33%). For catheter-unrelated BSI, there was a lower tendency to replace the CVC. For each combination of pathogen and CVC type, a majority (>50%) of participants reported willingness to enrol patients into an RCT comparing CVC replacement versus retention; the only exceptions below 50% were S. aureus (44%) and Candida spp (44%) CRBSIs from short-term non-tunnelled CVCs.
CONCLUSION: There is heterogeneity in CVC management practices and stated equipoise for an RCT comparing management approaches for a range of CVC types, BSI sources, and pathogens.
METHODS: An online multinational survey was sent to professional societies of specialties involved in treating patients who have BSI and a CVC. Clinicians were asked to choose retention versus replacement for scenarios involving different CVC types, infection sources, and pathogens. Additional questions explored central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) diagnosis, management, and willingness to enrol patients in a randomized controlled trial (RCT).
RESULTS: A total of 220 physicians responded. For peripherally inserted central catheter-related BSI, most favoured CVC replacement, although there was variability across pathogens (Candida spp 100%, Staphlococcus aureus 99%; Pseudomonas aeruginosa 94%; Enterococcus spp 75%; Enterobacterales 66%; coagulase-negative staphylococci 58%). For tunnelled CVC-related BSI, replacement recommendations also varied (Candida 99%; S. aureus 95%; P. aeruginosa 87%; Enterococcus spp 58%; Enterobacterales 44%; coagulase-negative staphylococci 33%). For catheter-unrelated BSI, there was a lower tendency to replace the CVC. For each combination of pathogen and CVC type, a majority (>50%) of participants reported willingness to enrol patients into an RCT comparing CVC replacement versus retention; the only exceptions below 50% were S. aureus (44%) and Candida spp (44%) CRBSIs from short-term non-tunnelled CVCs.
CONCLUSION: There is heterogeneity in CVC management practices and stated equipoise for an RCT comparing management approaches for a range of CVC types, BSI sources, and pathogens.