You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


Advertisement

ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | RSS | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 132 No. 12, December 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Online Only
 •  Online First Table of
Contents
  PAPERS
 •Online Features
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (62)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Delicious Add to Digg Add to Facebook Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

A Prospective Randomized Trial of an Antibiotic-and Antiseptic-Coated Central Venous Catheter in the Prevention of Catheter-Related Infections

Steven Tennenberg, MD; Mark Lieser, MD; Brenda McCurdy, PhD; Gail Boomer, BS; Ellen Howington, RN; Cheryl Newman, RN; Irma Wolf, RN

Arch Surg. 1997;132(12):1348-1351.


Abstract



Objective
To test the efficacy of the ARROWgard (Arrow International Inc, Reading, Pa) central venous catheter (CVC) coated with silver sulfadiazine and chlorhexidine (A-CVC) in the prevention of CVC-related infections.

Design
Prospective, randomized trial.

Setting
A tertiary care medical center.

Patients and Intervention
Two hundred eighty-two patients who required CVC placement were evaluated in this study. Patients were prospectively randomized to receive either a standard CVC (S-CVC) or the A-CVC. Only fresh-stick double- and triple-lumen catheters were studied.

Main Outcome Measures
Patients were evaluated for catheter site inflammation, catheter site colonization, local catheter-related infection, and catheter-related septicemia.

Results
The 2 groups were matched for age, percentage in the intensive care unit, percentage receiving total parenteral nutrition, percentage with triplelumen catheters, and duration of catheterization. Rates of catheter site inflammation in the 2 groups were similar (12% vs 10%, S-CVC group and A-CVC group, respectively). The A-CVC was associated with a significantly decreased catheter site colonization rate (49% vs 28%; 43% reduction; P<.001) and local catheter-related infection rate (22.4% vs 5.8%; 74% reduction; P<.001). Rates of catheter-related septicemia were reduced by 41% in the A-CVC group (6.4% vs 3.8%, S-CVC group and A-CVC group, respectively), but this was not statistically significant.

Conclusions
Despite a marked decrease in catheter site colonization and catheter-related infection rates, the A-CVC did not significantly reduce the incidence of catheter-related septicemia. This may be due to a greater pathogenic dependence on catheter hub contamination rather than catheter site colonization or local catheter-related infection, or the relatively short (5.2 days) duration of catheterization in this study.

Arch Surg. 1997;132:1348-1351



Author Affiliations



From the Department of Surgery, Detroit Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Mich.



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Delicious Delicious   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Are Antimicrobial-Impregnated Catheters Effective? When Does Repetition Reach the Point of Exhaustion?
Crnich and Maki
Clinical Infectious Diseases 2005;41:681-685.
FULL TEXT  

Are Antimicrobial-Impregnated Catheters Effective? Replace the Water and Grab Your Washcloth, Because We Have a Baby to Wash
McConnell et al.
Clinical Infectious Diseases 2004;39:1829-1833.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Reduced colonization and infection with miconazole-rifampicin modified central venous catheters: a randomized controlled clinical trial
Yucel et al.
J Antimicrob Chemother 2004;54:1109-1115.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Are Antimicrobial-Impregnated Catheters Effective? Don't Throw Out the Baby with the Bathwater
Crnich and Maki
Clinical Infectious Diseases 2004;38:1287-1292.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Do Antimicrobial-Impregnated Central Venous Catheters Prevent Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infection?
McConnell et al.
Clinical Infectious Diseases 2003;37:65-72.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Catheter-Tip Colonization as a Surrogate End Point in Clinical Studies on Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infection: How Strong Is the Evidence?
Rijnders et al.
Clinical Infectious Diseases 2002;35:1053-1058.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Promise of Novel Technology for the Prevention of Intravascular Device--Related Bloodstream Infection. I. Pathogenesis and Short-Term Devices
Crnich and Maki
Clinical Infectious Diseases 2002;34:1232-1242.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Cost-Effectiveness of Antiseptic-Impregnated Central Venous Catheters for the Prevention of Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infection
Veenstra et al.
JAMA 1999;282:554-560.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Vascular Access Device Selection for Parenteral Nutrition
Orr
Nutr Clin Pract 1999;14:172-177.
ABSTRACT  

Efficacy of Antiseptic-Impregnated Central Venous Catheters in Preventing Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infection: A Meta-analysis
Veenstra et al.
JAMA 1999;281:261-267.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

A Randomized Trial of an Antibiotic- and Antiseptic-Coated Central Venous Catheter in the Prevention of Catheter-Related Infections
Bach and Tennenberg
Arch Surg 1998;133:1022-1022.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | PHYSICIAN JOBS | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1997 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.