Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorChai Koh, David Boonen_US
dc.contributor.authorR. Gowardman, Johnen_US
dc.contributor.authorRickard, Claireen_US
dc.contributor.authorK. Robertson, Iainen_US
dc.contributor.authorBrown, Andrewen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-03T15:24:59Z
dc.date.available2017-05-03T15:24:59Z
dc.date.issued2008en_US
dc.date.modified2012-05-15T22:17:12Z
dc.identifier.issn00903493en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/CCM.0b013e318161f74ben_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/21022
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: Peripheral arterial catheters are perceived as having low infective potential compared with other catheters and may be overlooked as a cause of catheter-related bloodstream infection. We aimed to measure colonization and rates of catheter-related bloodstream infection in arterial catheters, to investigate risk factors for arterial catheter colonization, and to compare arterial catheter infection rates with those in concurrently sited and managed central venous catheters. DESIGN: Prospective 24-month cohort study. SETTING: Eight-bed combined general intensive care and high-dependency unit of a 350-bed Australian teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Three hundred twenty-one arterial catheters in 252 adult and pediatric patients were observed for 1,082 catheter days, and 618 central venous catheters in 410 patients were observed for 4,040 catheter days. All catheters were inserted in, or presented to, the intensive care unit. Both arterial catheters and central venous catheters were inserted by trained personnel under aseptic conditions, and management was standardized. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The incidence per 1,000 (95% confidence interval) catheter days of colonization (> or = 15 colonies) and catheter-related bloodstream infection was 15.7 (9.5-25.9) and 0.92 (0.13-6.44) for arterial catheters and 16.8 (13.3-21.3) and 2.23 (1.12-4.44) for central venous catheters. Arterial catheter colonization was not significantly different than that in central venous catheters (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-3.36; p = .77). Arterial catheter colonization increased with dwell time and was similar to central venous catheters over time. Femoral arterial catheters were colonized more often than radial arterial catheters (hazard ratio, 5.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.85, 30.3; p = .075), and colonization was significantly higher when the catheter was inserted in the operating theater or emergency department (hazard ratio, 4.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.42-13.9; p = .01) compared with the intensive care unit. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infection from arterial catheters was low. However, both arterial catheter colonization and rates of catheter-related bloodstream infection were similar to those in concurrently sited and identically managed central venous catheters. By inference, the arterial catheter should be accorded the same degree of importance as the central venous catheter as a potential source of sepsis.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_US
dc.format.extent207059 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherLippincott Williams & Wilkinsen_US
dc.publisher.placeUSAen_US
dc.publisher.urihttp://www.ccmjournal.orgen_US
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationNen_US
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom397en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto402en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissue2en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalCritical Care Medicineen_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume36en_US
dc.rights.retentionYen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode321010en_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode321009en_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode321103en_US
dc.titleProspective study of peripheral arterial catheter infection and comparison with concurrently sited central venous catheters.en_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Peer Reviewed (HERDC)en_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
gro.rights.copyrightCopyright 2008 LWW. This is a non-final version of an article published in final form in Critical Care Medicine, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 397-402]. Reproduced in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Please refer to the journal link for access to the definitive, published version.en_US
gro.date.issued2008
gro.hasfulltextFull Text


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record