Cost-Effectiveness of New Technology to Reduce Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections due to Central Venous Catheters

  • A. Sitges-Serra
Conference paper
Part of the Topics in Anaesthesia and Critical Care book series (TIACC)


Catheter-related bloodsream infections (CRBI) are preventable nosocomial infections. Maximal aseptic barriers at insertion and appropriate site and junction care can reduce this complication to close to zero figures [1–3]. Strict asepsis during catheter manipulation, however, is difficult to implement. Repeated hand washing, the use of sterile gloves during hub handling and appropriate help during nursing are either cumbersome or very expensive for routine use in most centers. Changing personnels shifts, shortage of well-trained health care workers, and low training standards may complicate the situation in many institutions and make effective prevention of CRBI a nightmare. Thus, new prevention strategies are currently being proposed by researchers and manufacturing companies based on “contamination-resistant” devices. The use of these devices is not meant to replace the time-honored principles of prevention based on strict asepsis being implemented at all times; however, new technology may certainly help the health care professionals in reducing sepsis rates. The purpose of this article is to briefly discuss the efficacy of three devices marketed in recent years with the aim of reducing CRBI rates and to presenta data concerning their cost-effectiveness.


Central Venous Catheter Catheter Infection Intravascular Catheter Catheter Manipulation Silver Sulfadiazine 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Raad II, Hohn DC, Gilbreath J et al (1994) Prevention of central venous catheter-related infections by using maximal sterile barrier precautions during insertion. Inf Control Hosp Epidemiol 15: 231–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shields PL, Field J, Rawlings J et al (1996) Long-term outcome and cost-effectiveness of parenteral nutrition for acute gastrointestinal failure. Clini Nutri 15: 64–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sitges-Serra A, Pi-Surer T, Garcés JM, Segura M (1995) Pathogenesis and prevention of catheter-related septicemia. Am J Inf Control 23: 310–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kamal GD, Pfaller MA, Rempe LE, Jebson PJ (1991) Reduced intravascular catheter infection by antibiotic bonding. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial. JAMA 265: 2364–2368Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pemberton LB, Ross V, Cuddy P et al (1996) No differences in catheter sepsis between standard and antiseptic central venous catheters. A prospective randomized trial. Arch Surg 131: 986–998Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heard SO, Wagle M,Vijayakumar E et al (1998) Influence of triple-lumen central venous catheter coated with chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine on the incidence of catheter-related bacteremia. Arch Int Med 158: 81–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tenneberg S, Lieser M, McCurdy B et al (1997) A prospective randomized trial of an antibiotic and antiseptic-coated central venous catheter in the prevention of catheter related infections. Arch Surg 132: 1348–1351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ciresi DL, Albrecht RM, Volkers PA, Scholten DJ (1996) Failure of antiseptic bonding to prevent central venous catheter-related infection and sepsis. Am Surg 62: 641–646PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maki DG, Stolz SM, Wheeler S, Mermel LA (1997) Prevention of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection by use of an antiseptic-impregnated catheter. Ann Int Med 127: 257–266sPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sherertz RJ, Heard SO, Raad II et al (1996) Gamma radiation-sterilized, triple lumen catheters coated with a low concentration of clorhexidine were not efficacious at preventing catheter infections in intensive care unit patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 40: 1995–1997PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Veenstra DL, Saint S, Lumley T, Sullivan SD (1999) Efficacy of antiseptic-impregnated central venous catheters in preventing catheter-related bloodstream infection: a meta-analysis. JAMA 281: 261–267Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Veenstra DL, Saint S, Sullivan SD (1999) Cost-effectiveness of antiseptic impregnated central venous catheters for the prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infections. JAMA 282: 554–560Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Raad I, Darouiche R, Dupuis Jet al (1997) Central venous catheters coated with minocy-Google Scholar
  14. cline and rifampin for the prevention of catheter-related colonization and bloodstream infections. A randomized, double-blind trial. Ann Int Med 127: 267–274Google Scholar
  15. 14.
    Darouiche RO, Raad II, Heard SO et al (1999) A comparison of two antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters. N Engl J Med 340: 1–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 15.
    Sitges-Serra A, Linares J, Garau J (1985) Catheter sepsis: the clue is the hub. Surgery 97: 355–357PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 16.
    Sitges-Serra A, Hernandez R, Maestro S et al (1997) Prevention of catheter sepsis: the hub. Nutrition 13: 30S - 35SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 17.
    Sherertz RJ, Heard SO, Raad II (1997) Diagnosis of triple-lumen catheter infection: comparison of roll plate, sonication, and flushing methodologies. J Clin Microbiol 35: 641–646PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 18.
    Raad I, Costerton JW, Sabharwall U et al (1993) Ultrastructural analysis of indwelling vascular catheters: a quantitative relationship between luminal colonization and duration of placement. J Inf Dis 168: 400–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 19.
    Wenzel RP, Edmond MB (1999) Editorial. N Engl J Med 340: 48–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 20.
    Segura M, Alfa C, Oms L et al (1989) In vitro bacteriological study of a new hub model for intravascular catheters and infusion equipment. J Clin Microbiol 27: 2656–2659PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 21.
    Segura M, Alfa C, Oms L et al (1990) Assessment of a new hub design and the semi-quantitative catheter culture method using an in vivo experimental model of catheter sepsis. J Clin Microbiol 28: 2551–2554PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 22.
    Segura M, Alvarez F, Tellado JM et al (1996) A clinical trial on the prevention of catheter-related sepsis using a new hub model. Ann Surg 223: 363–369PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 23.
    Arnow PM, Quimosing EM, Beach M (1993) Consequences of intravascular catheter sepsis. Clin Inf Dis 16: 778–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 24.
    Morfs de la Tassa J, Fernandez-Munoz P, Antuna A et al (1998) Estudio de los costes asociados a la bacteriemia relacionada con el catéter. Rev Clin Esp 198: 641–646Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia, Milano 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Sitges-Serra

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations