Antimicrobial-Modified Vascular Catheters

  • Rabih O. DarouicheEmail author


Vascular catheters constitute an essential component of modern health care. The escalating use of vascular catheters has highlighted the need to optimize prevention of infectious complications. Bloodstream infection is the most common serious complication of indwelling vascular catheters. Although strict implementation of traditional infection control measures continues to be the primary measure for preventing infection, the level of adherence by medical staff to such measures varies over time, between different units, and across various medical centers. This limitation underscores the need to assess the potential clinical impact of surface modification of vascular catheters. Since catheter colonization can be a prelude to infection, antimicrobial modification of the surfaces of catheters has the potential of not only inhibiting bacterial colonization of the catheter surfaces but also reducing the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infection. A number of antimicrobial-modified vascular catheters are currently available for patient care, but they differ with regard to the type of antimicrobials, application on the external versus internal catheter surfaces, spectrum and durability of antimicrobial activity, and the ability to clinically protect against catheter-related bloodstream infection. Scientific evidence should guide the present and future applications of antimicrobial-modified catheters.


Central Venous Catheter Bloodstream Infection Vascular Catheter Silver Sulfadiazine Catheter Colonization 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Dr. Darouiche is a coinventor of the impregnation of vascular catheters with the combination of minocycline and rifampin. Baylor College of Medicine, the employer of Dr. Darouiche, owns the corresponding patents and has executed a licensing agreement with Cook Inc. for manufacturing of vascular catheters impregnated with minocycline and rifampin. Baylor College of Medicine provides Dr. Darouiche with a certain portion of the royalties received from Cook Inc.


  1. 1.
    O’Grady NP, Alexander M, Burns LA, et al. Summary of recommendations: guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52:1087–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Demetriades D, May A, Gamble H. When does a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendation become standard of care? Perhaps in the courtroom. American College of Surgeons mock trial: line sepsis liability. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;206:370–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McGee D, Gould M. Preventing complications of central venous catheterization. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:1123–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Darouiche RO, Berger DH, Khardori N, et al. Comparison of antimicrobial impregnation with tunneling of long-term central venous catheters: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2005;242:193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cicalini S, Palmieri F, Petrosillo N. Clinical review: new technologies for prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Crit Care. 2004;8:157–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Donelli G, Francolini I. Efficacy of antiadhesive, antibiotic and antiseptic coatings in preventing catheter-related infections: review. J Chemother. 2001;13:595–606.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mermel LA. Prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Ann Intern Med. 2000;132: 391–402.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Warren DK, Quadir WW, Hollenbeak CS, et al. Attributable cost of catheter-associated bloodstream infections among intensive care patients in a nonteaching hospital. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:2084–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pittet D, Tarara D, Wenzel RP. Nosocomial bloodstream infection in critically ill patients: excess length of stay, extra costs, and attributable mortality. JAMA. 1994;271:1598–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heiselman D. Nosocomial bloodstream infections in the critically ill [Letter]. JAMA. 1994; 272: 1819–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pittet D, Wenzel RP. Nosocomial bloodstream infections in the critically ill [Letter]. JAMA. 1994;272:1820–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dimick JB, Pelz RK, Consunji R, et al. Increased resource use associated with catheter-related bloodstream infection in the surgical intensive care unit. Arch Surg. 2001;136:229–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Darouiche RO. Device-associated infections: a macroproblem that starts with microadherence. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;33:1567–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smith TL, Pearson ML, Wilcox KR, et al. Emergence of vancomycin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:493–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sieradzki K, Roberts RB, Haber SW, Tomasz A. The development of vancomycin resistance in a patient with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:517–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Raad II, Luna M, Khalil SM, Costerton JW, Lam C, Bodey GP. The relationship between the thombotic and infectious complications of central venous catheters. JAMA. 1994;271: 1014–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Darouiche RO, Landon GC, Patti JM, et al. Role of Staphylococcus aureus surface adhesions in orthopaedic device infections. J Med Microbiol. 1997;46:75–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Virden CP, Dobke MP, Stein P, Parsons CJ, Frank DH. Subclinical infection of the silicone breast implant surface as a possible cause of capsular contracture. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1992;16:173–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leung JW, Liu YL, Desta T, Libby E, Inciardi JF, Lam K. Is there a synergistic effect between mixed bacterial infection in biofilm formation in biliary stents? Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;48:250–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Esposito M, Hirsch J, Lekholm U, Thomsen P. Differential diagnosis and treatment strategies for biologic complications and failing oral implants: a review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999;14:473–90.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Safdar N, Kluger DM, Maki DG. A review of risk factors for catheter-related bloodstream infection caused by percutaneoulsy inserted, non-cuffed central venous catheters: implications for preventive strategies. Medicine (Baltimore). 2002;81:466–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Maki DG, Cobb L, Garman JK, et al. An attachable silver-impregnated cuff for prevention of infection with central venous catheters: a prospective randomized multicenter trial. Am J Med. 1988;85:307–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Salzman MB, Isenberg HD, Shapiro JF, et al. A prospective study of the catheter hub as the portal of entry for organisms causing catheter-related sepsis in neonates. J Infect Dis. 1993;167:487–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Raad II, Bodey GP. Infectious complications of indwelling vascular catheters. Clin Infect Dis. 1992;15:197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Costerton JW, Stewart PS, Greenberg EP. Bacterial biofilms: a common cause of persistent infections. Science. 1999;284:1318–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Darouiche RO, Dhir A, Miller AJ, Landon GC, Raad II, Musher DM. Vancomycin penetration into biofilm covering infected prostheses and effect on bacteria. J Infect Dis. 1994;170:720–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kumon H, Tomochika K, Matunaga T, et al. A sandwich cup method for the penetration assay of antimicrobial agents through Pseudomonas exopolysaccharides. Microbiol Immunol. 1994;38:615–9.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Darouiche RO. Anti-infective efficacy of silver-coated medical prostheses. Clin Infect Dis. 1999;29:1371–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zaat SAJ, Broekhuizen CAN, Riool M. Future Microbiol. 2010;5:1149–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Thornton J, Todd NJ, Webster NR. Central venous line sepsis in the intensive care unit: a study comparing antibiotic coated catheters with plain catheters. Anaesthesia. 1996;51:1018–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bassetti S, Hu J, D’Agostino Jr RB, Sherertz RJ. In vitro zones of inhibition of vascular catheters predict efficacy in preventing catheter infection with Staphylococcus aureus in vivo. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2000;19:612–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Raad I, Darouiche R, Hachem R, Sacilowski M, Bodey GP. Antibiotics and prevention of microbial colonization of catheters. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1995;39:2397–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Raad I, Darouiche R, Hachem R, Mansouri M, Bodey GP. The broad spectrum activity and efficacy of catheters coated with minocycline and rifampin. J Infect Dis. 1996;173:418–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Darouiche RO, Raad II, Heard SO, et al. A comparison of two antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sherertz RJ, Heard SO, Raad II, et al. Gamma radiation-sterilized, triple-lumen catheters with a low concentration of chlorhexidine were not efficacious at preventing catheter infections in intensive care unit patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1996;40:1995–7.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jansen B, Rinck M, Wolbring P, Strohmeier A, Jahns T. In vitro evaluation of the antimicrobial efficacy and biocompatibility of a silver-coated central venous catheter. J Biomat App. 1994;9: 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kampf G, Dietze B, Grobe-Siestrup C, Wendt C, Martiny H. Microbicidal activity of a new silver-containing polymer, SPI-ARGENT II. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1998;42:2440–2.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gilbert JA, Cooper RC, Puryear HA, et al. A swine model for the evaluation of efficacy of anti-microbial catheter coatings. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed. 1998;9:931–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Goldschmidt H, Hahn U, Satwender HJ, et al. Prevention of catheter-related infections by silver-coated central venous catheters in oncological patients. Zentralbl Bakteriol. 1995;283:215–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bach A, Eberhardt H, Frick A, et al. Efficacy of silver-coating central venous catheters in reducing bacterial colonization. Crit Care Med. 1999;27:515–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Dunser MW, Mayr AJ, Hinterberger G, et al. Central venous catheter colonization in critically ill patients: a prospective, randomized, controlled study comparing standard with two antiseptic-impregnated catheters. Anesth Analg. 2005;101:1778–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kalfon P, de Vaumus C, Samba D, et al. Comparison of silver-impregnated with standard multi-lumen central venous catheters in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med. 2007;35:1032–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Trerotola S, Johnson M, Shah H, et al. Tunneled hemodialysis catheters: use of a silver-coated catheter for prevention of infection-a randomized study. Radiology. 1998;207:491–6.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Schierholz JM, Wachol-Drewek Z, Lucas LJ, Pulverer G. Activity of silver ions in different media. Zentralbl Bakteriol. 1998;287:411–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mermel LA, Stolz SM, Maki DG. Surface antimicrobial activity of heparin-bonded and antiseptic-impregnated vascular catheters. J Infect Dis. 1993;167:920–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Moss HA, Se T, Faroqui MH, et al. A central venous catheter coated with benzalkonium chloride for the prevention of catheter-related microbial colonization. Eur J Anesthesiol. 2000;17:680–7.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Jaeger K, Osthaus A, Heine J, et al. Efficacy of a benzalkonium chloride-impregnated central venous catheter to prevent catheter-associated infection in cancer patients. Eur J Chemother. 2001;47:50–5.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kamal GD, Pfaller MA, Rempe LE, et al. Reduced intravascular catheter infection by antibiotic bonding. JAMA. 1991;265:2364–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Thornton J, Todd NJ, Webster NR. Central venous line sepsis in the intensive care unit: a study comparing antibiotic coated catheters with plain catheters. Anesthesia. 1996;51:1018–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ranucci M, Isgro G, Giomarelli PP, et al. Impact of oligon central venous catheters on catheter colonization and catheter-related bloodstream infection. Crit Care Med. 2003;31:52–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Fraenkel D, Rickard C, Thomas P, Faogali J, George N, Ware R. A prospective, randomized trial of rifampicin-minocycline-coated and silver-platinum-carbon-impregnated central venous catheters. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:668–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Schierholz JM, Fleck C, Beuth J, Pulverer G. The antimicrobial efficacy of a new central venous catheter with long-term broad-spectrum activity. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2000;46:45–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Yucel N, Lefering R, Meagele M, et al. Reduced colonization and infection with miconazole-rifampicin modified central venous catheters: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2004;54:1109–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ciresi DL, Albrecht RM, Volkers PA, Scholten DJ. Failure of antiseptic bonding to prevent central venous catheter-related infection and sepsis. Am Surg. 1996;62:641–6.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Osma S, Kahveci SF, Kaya FN, et al. Efficacy of antiseptic-impregnated catheters on catheter colonization and catheter-related bloodstream infections in patients in an intensive care unit. J Hosp Infect. 2006;62:156–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Logghe C, Van Ossel C, D’Hoore W, Ezzedine H, Wauters G, Haxhe JJ. Evaluation of chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine impregnated central venous catheters for the prevention of bloodstream infection in leukaemic patients: a randomized controlled trial. J Hosp Infect. 1997;37:145–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Sheng WH, Ko WJ, Wang JT, Chang SC, Hsueh PR, Luk KT. Evaluation of antiseptic-impregnated central venous catheters for prevention of catheter-related infection in intensive care unit patients. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2000;38:1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Carrasco MN, Bueno A, de las Cuevas C, et al. Evaluation of a triple-lumen central venous heparin heparin-coated catheter versus a catheter coated with chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30:633–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Heard SO, Wagle M, Vijayakumar E, et al. The influence of triple-lumen central venous catheters coated with chlorhexidine/silversulfadiazine on the incidence of catheter-related bacteremia: a randomized, controlled clinical trial. Arch Intern Med. 1998;158:81–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Tennenberg S, Lieser M, McCurdy B, et al. A prospective randomized clinical trial of an antibiotic- and antiseptic-coated central venous catheter in the prevention of catheter-related infections. Arch Surg. 1997;132:1348–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Brun-Buisson C, Doyon F, Sollet LP, Cochard JF, Cohen Y, Nitenberg G. Prevention of intravascular catheter-related infection with newer chlorhexidine-silver-sulfadiazine-coated catheters: a randomized controlled trial. Intensive care Med. 2004;30:837–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Maki DG, Stolz SM, Wheeler S, Mermel LA. Prevention of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection by use of an antiseptic-impregnated catheter: a randomized, controlled study. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:257–66.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Jeager K, Zenz S, Juttner B, et al. Reduction of catheter-related infections in neutropenic patients: a prospective controlled trial using chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine-impregnated central venous catheter. Ann Hematol. 2005;84:258–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Rupp ME, Lisco SJ, Lipsett PA, et al. Effect of a second-generation venous catheter impregnated with chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine on central catheter-related infections: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2005;143:570–80.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Veenstra DL, Saint S, Saha S, Lumley T, Sullivan SD. Efficacy of antiseptic-impregnated central venous catheters in preventing catheter-related bloodstream infection. JAMA. 1999;281:261–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Hockenhull JC, Dwan KM, Smith GW, et al. The clinical effectiveness of central venous catheters treated with anti-infective agents in preventing catheter-related bloodstream infections: a systematic review. Crit Care Med. 2009;37:702–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Ramritu P, Halton K, Colligan P, et al. A systematic review comparing the relative effectiveness of antimicrobial-coated catheters in intensive care units. Am J Infect Control. 2008;36:104–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Bassetti S, Hu J, D’Agastino Jr et al. Prolonged antimicrobial activity of a catheter containing chlorhexidine-silver sulfadiazine extends protection against catheter infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001;45:1535–8Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Raad I, Hana H. Intravascular catheters impregnated with antimicrobial agents: a milestone in the prevention of bloodstream infections. Support Care Cancer. 1999;7:386–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Walz JM, Avelar RL, Longtine KJ, et al. Anti-infective external coating of central venous catheters: a randomized, noninferiority trial comparing 5-flurouracil with chlorhexidine/silver sulfadiazine in preventing catheter colonization. Crit Care Med. 2010;38:2095–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Darouiche RO, Raad II, Bodey GP, Musher DM. Antibiotic susceptibility of staphylococcal isolates from patients with vascular catheter-related bacteremia: potential role of the combination of minocycline and rifampin. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 1995;6:31–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Raad I, Darouiche R, Hachem R, Mansouri M, Bodey GP. The broad spectrum activity and efficacy of catheters coated with minocycline and rifampin. J Infect Dis. 1996;173:418–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Raad I, Hanna H, Jiang Y, et al. Comparative activities of daptomycin, linezolid, and tigecycline against catheter-related methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus bacteremic isolates embedded in biofilm. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007;51:1656–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Widmer AF, Frei R, Rajacic Z, et al. Correlation between in vivo and in vitro efficacy of antimicrobial agents against foreign body infections. J Infect Dis. 1990;162:96–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Raad I, Darouiche R, Dupuis J, et al. Central venous catheters coated with minocycline and rifampin for the prevention of catheter-related colonization and bloodstream infections: a randomized, double-blind trial. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:267–74.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Leon C, Ruiz-Santana S, Rello J, et al. Benefits of minocycline and rifampin-impregnated central venous catheters. A prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled, multicenter trial. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30:1891–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Darouiche RO, Raad II, Heard SO, et al. A comparison of two antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Marick PE, Abraham G, Careau P, Varon J, Fromm Jr RE. The ex vivo antibacterial activity and colonization rate of two antimicrobial-coated central venous catheters. Crit Care Med. 1999;27: 1128–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Hanna H, Benjamin R, Chatzinikolau I, et al. Long-term silicone central venous catheters impregnated with minocycline and rifampin decrease rates of catheter-related bloodstream infection in cancer patients: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. J Clin Oncol. 2004; 22:3163–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Chatzinikolau I, Finkel K, Hanna H, et al. Antibiotic-coated hemodialysis catheters for the prevention of vascular-catheter related infections: a prospective, randomized study. Am J Med. 2003;115:352–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Falagas ME, Fragoulis K, Bliziotis IA, Chatzinikolau I. Rifampicin-impregnated central venous catheters: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2007;59:359–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Pai MP, Pendland SL, Danziger LH. Antimicrobial-coated/bonded and –impregnated intravascular catheters. Ann Pharmacother. 2001;35:1255–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Gilbert RE, Harden M. Effectiveness of impregnated central venous catheters for catheter related blood stream infection: a systematic review. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2008;21:235–45.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Sampath LA, Tambe SM. In vitro and in vivo efficacy of catheters impregnated with antiseptics or antibiotics: evaluation of risk of bacterial resistance to the antimicrobials in the catheters. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2001;22:640–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Aslam S, Darouiche RO. Prolonged bacterial exposure to minocycline/rifampicin-impregnated vascular catheters does not affect antimicrobial activity of catheters. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2007;60:148–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Munson EL, Heard SO, Doern GV. In vitro exposure of bacteria to antimicrobial impregnated-central venous catheters does not directly lead to the emergence of antimicrobial resistance. Chest. 2004;126:1628–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Chatzinikolaou I, Hanna H, Graviss L, et al. Clinical experience with minocycline and rifampin-impregnated central venous catheters in bone marrow transplantation recipients: efficacy and low risk of developing staphylococcal resistance. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2003;24:961–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    McConnell SA, Gubbins PO, Anaissie EJ. Do antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters prevent catheter-related bloodstream infection? Clin Infect Dis. 2003;37:65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Crnich CJ, Maki DG. Are antimicrobial-impregnated catheters effective? Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38:1287–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    McConnell SA, Gubbins PO, Anaissie EJ. Are antimicrobial-impregnated catheters effective? Replace the water and grab your washcloth, because we have a baby to wash. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39:1829–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Richards MJ, Edwards JR, Culver DH, Gaines RP. Nosocomial infections in medical intensive care units in the United States. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. Crit Care Med. 1999;27:887–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Pronovost P, Needham D, Berenholtz S, et al. An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU. N Engl J Med. 2007;355:2725–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Warren DK, Zack JE, Mayfield JL, et al. The effect of an education program on the incidence of central venous catheter-associated bloodstream infection in a medical ICU. Chest. 2004;126:1612–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Sherertz RJ, Ely EW, Westbrook DM, et al. Education of physicians-in-training can decrease the risk for vascular catheter infection. Ann Intern Med. 2000;132:641–8.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Bijma R, Girbes AR, Klejer DJ, et al. Preventing central venous catheter-related infection in a surgical intensive-care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20:618–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    O’Grady NP, Alexander M, Dellinger EP et al. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2002;51(RR-10):1–29.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Crnich CJ, Maki DG. The promise of novel technology for the prevention of intravascular device-related bloodstream infection. I. Pathogenesis and short-term devices. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;34:1232–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Crnich CJ, Maki DG. The promise of novel technology for the prevention of intravascular device-related bloodstream infection. II. Long-term devices. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;34:1362–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Veenstra DL, Saint S, Sullivan SD. Cost-effectiveness of antiseptic-impregnated central venous catheters for the prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infection. JAMA. 1999;282:554–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Shorr AF, Humphreys CW, Helman DL. New choices for central venous catheters: potential financial implications. Chest. 2003;124:275–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Bouza E, Guembe M, Munoz P. Selection of the vascular catheter: can it minimise the risk of infection. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2010;36 Suppl 2:S22–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Raad I, Hana H, Maki D. Intravascular catheter-related infections: advances in diagnosis, prevention, and management. Lancet Infect Dis. 2007;7:645–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Prostheses Infection and Infectious Disease SectionMichael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of MedicineHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations