ArticleJAMA network open2020
Comparison of Rates of Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections in Patients With 1 vs 2 Central Venous Catheters.
Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of a nurse-led peripherally inserted central catheter service: A retrospective cohort study.The journal of vascular access · 2025Article
- Prevalence of central line-associated bloodstream infections in patients with cancer and subgroup analysis using propensity score matching: A nationwide multicenter study in Italy.International journal of nursing sciences · 2025Article
- Incidence, Compliance, and Risk Factor Associated with Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infection (CLABSI) in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) Patients: A Multicenter Study in an Upper Middle-Income Country.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Sex-Disaggregated Analysis of Central Venous Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections in Patients with Cancer.Oncology research and treatment · 2025Article
- Central venous catheter-related infection: does insertion site still matter? A French multicentric cohort study.Intensive care medicine · 2024Article
- Replacement Strategies for Tunneled Hemodialysis Catheters with Complications: A Nationwide Cohort Study.Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN · 2024Article
- Risk Assessment of Venous Thromboembolism among Septic Shock Patients: Single versus Concurrent Insertion of Central Venous Catheters.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Prevalence of Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections (CLABSI) in Intensive Care and Medical-Surgical Units.Cureus · 2022Article
- Mapping progress in intravascular catheter quality surveillance: An Australian case study of electronic medical record data linkage.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Review
- Nurses' Knowledge and Behavior in Hospitals Regarding the Prevention of Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections: A Systematic Review.SAGE open nursingReview
- Analyzing outcomes for peripheral versus central administration of vasopressors: A narrative review.Saudi journal of anaesthesiaReview
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: National Healthcare Safety Network methods for central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) surveillance do not account for potential additive risk for CLABSI associated with use of 2 central venous catheters (CVCs) at the same time (concurrent CVCs); facilities that serve patients requiring high acuity care with medically indicated concurrent CVC use likely disproportionally incur Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services payment penalties for higher CLABSI rates. Objective: To quantify the risk for CLABSI associated with concurrent use of a second CVC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included adult patients with 2 or more days with a CVC at 4 geographically separated general acute care hospitals in the Atlanta, Georgia, area that varied in size from 110 to 580 beds, from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2017. Variables included clinical conditions, central line-days, and concurrent CVC use. Patients were propensity score-matched for likelihood of concurrence (limited to 2 CVCs), and conditional logistic regression modeling was performed to estimate the risk of CLABSI associated with concurrence. Episodes of CVC were categorized as low or high risk and single vs concurrent use to evaluate time to CLABSI with Cox proportional hazards regression models. Data were analyzed from January to June 2019. Exposures: Two CVCs present at the same time. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospitalizations in which a patient developed a CLABSI, allowing estimation of patient risk for CLABSI and daily hazard for a CVC episode ending in CLABSI. Results: Among a total of 50 254 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 59 [45-69] years; 26 661 [53.1%] women), 64 575 CVCs were used and 647 CLABSIs were recorded. Concurrent CVC use was recorded in 6877 patients (13.7%); the most frequent indications for concurrent CVC use were nutrition (554 patients [14.1%]) or hemodialysis (1706 patients [43.4%]). In the propensity score-matched cohort, 74 of 3932 patients with concurrent CVC use (1.9%) developed CLABSI, compared with 81 of 7864 patients with single CVC use (1.0%). Having 2 CVCs for longer than two-thirds of a patient's CVC use duration was associated with increased likelihood of developing a CLABSI, adjusting for central line-days and comorbidities (adjusted risk ratio, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.10-2.33; P = .001). In survival analysis adjusting for sex, receipt of chemotherapy or total parenteral nutrition, and facility, compared with a single CVC, the daily hazard for 2 low-risk CVCs was 1.78 (95% CI, 1.35-2.34; P < .001), while the daily hazard for 1 low-risk and 1 high-risk CVC was 1.80 (95% CI, 1.42-2.28; P < .001), and the daily hazard for 2 high-risk CVCs was 1.78 (95% CI, 1.14-2.77; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that concurrent CVC use is associated with nearly 2-fold the risk of CLABSI compared with use of a single low-risk CVC. Performance metrics for CLABSI should change to account for variations of this intrinsic patient risk among facilities to reduce biased comparisons and resultant penalties applied to facilities that are caring for more patients with medically indicated concurrent CVC use.
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.