Arterial catheter outcomes in intensive care: An analysis of 1117 patients
Samantha Keogh1, Emily Larsen2, Amanda Corley3
1School of Nursing, School of Clinical Sciences and the Centre for Healthcare Transformation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Qld, Australia; Departments of Intensive Care Services, Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, and the Nursing and Midwifery Research Centre, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Qld, Australia; Alliance for Vascular Access Teaching and Research (AVATAR), School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
Background:
Access to arterial circulation through arterial catheters (ACs) is crucial for monitoring and decision-making in intensive care units (ICU) but carries the risk of complications including bloodstream infection (BSI).
Methods:
We conducted a secondary analysis of data from four randomised controlled trials in Australian ICUs, investigating the efficacy of different AC interventions. De-identified data were combined into a single dataset, and per-patient outcomes analysed. The primary outcome was AC-BSI, defined as laboratory confirmed bloodstream infection (LCBI) type 1 or 2, with a concurrent local infection. All-cause AC failure was defined as any unplanned removal. AC infection and failure were reported as rates per 1000 catheter days and hours.
Results:
Data from 1117 adult patients were analysed. Mean age was 58.8 years (±16.6); and 41% (n = 462) were male. Median AC dwell time was 110 h (IQR 28.3-168.0). There was one case (<0.1%; 0.18/1000 catheter days [95% CI 0.03-1.29]) of AC-BSI, and 14 cases of LCBI (1%; 13 LCBI-1 and 1 LCBI-2; 2.54/1000 catheter days [95% CI 1.51-4.30]). LCBI were most commonly Enterococcus faecalis; Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae. There were four cases of local infection (<1%; 0.73/1000 catheter days [95% CI 0.27-1.94]). Overall AC failure rate was 13% (n = 146) or 26.53/1000 catheter days (95% CI 22.56-31.20).
Conclusion:
This study identified a relatively low incidence of complications. This is likely reflective of poor monitoring of ACs in intensive care. Better surveillance and a rigorous prospective evaluation of AC outcomes is required to understand the true risk ACs pose to critically ill patients.
More Related Videos
10:09Drug Treatment by Central Venous Catheter in a Mouse Model of Angiotensin II Induced Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm and Monitoring by 3D Ultrasound
Published on: August 4, 2022
06:59A Novel Approach for the Administration of Medications and Fluids in Emergency Scenarios and Settings
Published on: November 9, 2016
