ArticleIntensive care medicine2012
A multicentre analysis of catheter-related infection based on a hierarchical model.
Article in Intensive care medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chlorhexidine-impregnated dressing for the prophylaxis of central venous catheter-related complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2019Pooled it
- Evidence-based measures to prevent central line-associated bloodstream infections: a systematic review.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2016Pooled it
- Catheter impregnation, coating or bonding for reducing central venous catheter-related infections in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Trial
- Complications of intravascular catheters in ICU: definitions, incidence and severity. A randomized controlled trial comparing usual transparent dressings versus new-generation dressings (the ADVANCED study).Intensive care medicine · 2016Trial
- Trial
- Practice guideline on the prevention and treatment of central line-associated bloodstream infection: Part 2 - Treatment.Journal of intensive medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Development and validation of a multivariable model predicting the required catheter dwell time among mechanically ventilated critically ill patients in three randomized trials.Annals of intensive care · 2023Article
- Epidemiology of ICU-Onset Bloodstream Infection: Prevalence, Pathogens, and Risk Factors Among 150,948 ICU Patients at 85 U.S. Hospitals.Critical care medicine · 2022Article
- Development and validation of a multivariable prediction model of central venous catheter-tip colonization in a cohort of five randomized trials.Critical care (London, England) · 2022Article
- Review
- Discovery of hemocompatible bacterial biofilm-resistant copolymers.Biomaterials · 2020Article
- Bloodstream infections in critically ill patients: an expert statement.Intensive care medicine · 2020Article
- Sustained reduction of catheter-associated bloodstream infections with enhancement of catheter bundle by chlorhexidine dressings over 11 years.Intensive care medicine · 2019Article
- Detection of bacterial DNA from central venous catheter removed from patients by next generation sequencing: a preliminary clinical study.Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials · 2018Article
- Treatment of central line-associated bloodstream infections.Critical care (London, England) · 2018Article
- A state of the art review on optimal practices to prevent, recognize, and manage complications associated with intravascular devices in the critically ill.Intensive care medicine · 2018Review
- Treatment of bloodstream infections in ICUs.BMC infectious diseases · 2014Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo decrease intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired catheter-related infections (CRI), it is essential that healthcare workers receive training and that quality improvement programmes are in place. The aim of our study was to evaluate risk factors for catheter colonisation and infection, focussing specifically on local care bundles.
methodsData were collected prospectively in 51 ICUs [7,188 patients, 8,626 central venous catheters (CVCs)] during two 6-month periods in 2007 and 2008, using a standardized questionnaire on catheter insertion, care and removal. Colonisation and CRI incidence were 6.1 and 2.2/1,000 CVC-days, respectively. A hierarchical mixed logistic model was used to identify risk factors for CRI and colonisation.
resultsWritten CVC protocols were available in 46 (90 %) ICUs and were strictly followed in 38 ICUs. Factors significantly associated with CRI fell into three overall categories: (1) patient-related factors-immunosuppression [odds ratio (OR) 1.42, p = 0.02], medical diagnosis at admission (OR 1.64, p = 0.03) and trauma patient (OR 2.54, p < 0.001); (2) catheter-related factors-catheter rank (OR 1.7, p < 0.0001, non-subclavian catheter (OR 2.1, p < 0.001) and longer time with the catheter (p < 10(-4)); (3) centre-related factors-quantitative tip culture method (OR 2.55, p = 0.005) and alcohol-based povidone-iodine [OR 0.68, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.96] or alcohol-based chlorhexidine preparations (OR 0.69, 95 % CI 0.34-1.39) as compared to an aqueous povidone-iodine preparation (p < 0.001).
conclusionsWe identified several risk factors for CRI that are amenable to improvement (preference for the subclavian route and use of an antiseptic solution containing alcohol). However, several patient-related factors were also found, and the use of quantitative catheter culture methods increased culture sensitivity, thereby increasing the CRI rate. Case-mix issues and the culture method should be taken into account when assessing the risk of CRI across centres.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.