eMJA     The Medical Journal of Australia

Home | Issues | eMJA shop | My account | Classifieds | Contact | More... | Topics | Search   

Letters

Central venous catheters: optimal patient care or convenience?

MJA 2004; 180 (11): 595-596

John R Gowardman,* Maria Brosnan, Joy Whiting, Peter Collignon§

* Intensive Care Physician, † Medical Student, ‡ Data Manager, Intensive Care Unit, § Director, Infectious Diseases Unit and Microbiology Department, The Canberra Hospital, PO Box 11, Woden, ACT 2607. peter.collignonATact.gov.au

To the Editor: In most serious infections associated with intravascular devices, the device is a central venous catheter (CVC).1,2 Good clinical practice dictates that these devices should be removed when no longer needed.3

Our intensive care unit maintains a clinical practice of prompt removal of CVCs once they are no longer required. In addition, CVCs are to be removed before patients are discharged from the unit (for “general” patients) or within 24 hours (for cardiothoracic surgical patients). We conducted an audit to determine how often this practice was followed and whether it had unintended adverse clinical consequences (eg, need to reinsert a CVC).

The audit was conducted over 8 weeks in 2001 and included 126 CVCs in 103 patients. Fifty-eight CVCs (46%) were removed by the predetermined time, and 68 (53%) were retained past this time (Box).

The data demonstrated:

The reason given for CVC retention in general patients was antibiotic administration for 37/40 (93%) (vancomycin, 6; β-lactams, 20; aminoglycosides, 9; and quinolones, 2), while total parenteral nutrition and poor peripheral access were factors in only seven (18%). In the 13 cardiothoracic surgical patients, the reason given was inotrope infusion in four (30%) and amiodarone infusion in four; no reason could be ascertained in the other five.

Two issues emerge from this audit. Firstly, there did not appear to be good reasons for retaining many of these CVCs. Drug therapy was most often quoted, but many of these drugs (antibiotics and amiodarone) could have been safely administered via a short peripheral intravenous cannula, with markedly lower risk of infection.2-5 We believe that when a patient left the intensive care unit with a CVC, it most likely remained in place as a “convenience” factor for busy nursing and junior medical staff on the wards. However, this was at the cost of a significant increase in CVC in-situ times, increasing the risk of both mechanical and infectious complications.

Secondly, implementation of predetermined CVC removal appears safe in our hospital. Although removal rates were lower than expected, nearly half of all CVCs inserted over the 8-week study period were removed as per “clinical practice”, without any need for CVC reinsertions.

We have now further refined our clinical practice and introduced a formal written policy that:

We recommend implementation of this simple policy in other intensive care units.

Characteristics of patients and central venous catheters (CVCs) in the audit

General ICU patients


Cardiothoracic patients


CVC removed

CVC retained

P

CVC removed

CVC retained

P


Number of patients

20

40

30

13

Number of CVCs

23

51

35

17

APACHE II score (mean [SD])

14 (3)

16 (6)

0.13

13 (4)

13 (2)

1.00

Length of ICU stay (d) (mean [SD])

3.9 (5.4)

2.4 (3.5)

0.2

1 (0)

2.1 (3.7)

0.1

Ventilation time (h) (mean [SD])

61 (86)

47 (51)

0.5

17 (3.5)

20 (15.6)

0.3

% Of patients ventilated*

60%

41%

100%

100%

CVC in-situ time (d) (mean [SD])

3.2 (3.2)

7.0 (5.6)

0.003

2.1 (0.25)

4.5 (3.8)

0.001

Number of peripheral IV catheters (mean [SD])

1.8 (1)

0.6 (0.6)

< 0.001

0

0.07

Number of CVCs reinserted

0

na

0

na


ICU = intensive care unit. IV = intravenous. na = not applicable. * Mechanically ventilated in the intensive care unit. † At 7-day follow up. ‡ Only one peripheral catheter was inserted in one patient.

  1. Mermel LA. Prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Ann Intern Med 2000; 132: 391-402. <PubMed>
  2. Collignon P, on behalf of the Australian Study on Intravascular Catheter Associated Sepsis. Intravascular catheter associated sepsis; a common problem. Med J Aust 1994; 161: 374-378. <PubMed>
  3. O'Grady NP, Alexander M, Dellinger EP, et al. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. MMWR Recomm Rep 2002; 9: 51(RR-10): 1-29. Available at: www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5110a1.htm
  4. Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia. Australian injectable drugs handbook. 2nd ed. Melbourne: Yackandandah Press, 1999.
  5. Raad II, Bodey GP. Infectious complications of indwelling vascular catheters. Clin Infect Dis 1992; 15: 197-210. <PubMed>

©The Medical Journal of Australia 2004 www.mja.com.au ISSN: 0025-729X

Other articles have cited this article:

Home | Issues | eMJA shop | My account | Classifieds | More... | Contact | Topics | Search

The Medical Journal of Australia    eMJA