Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2005 Dec;101(6):1778-1784.
doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000184200.40689.EB.

Central venous catheter colonization in critically ill patients: a prospective, randomized, controlled study comparing standard with two antiseptic-impregnated catheters

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Central venous catheter colonization in critically ill patients: a prospective, randomized, controlled study comparing standard with two antiseptic-impregnated catheters

Martin W Dünser et al. Anesth Analg. 2005 Dec.

Abstract

In this prospective, randomized, controlled, unblinded study, we compared colonization rates of a standard, unimpregnated central venous catheter (CVC) with rates for silver-coated and chlorhexidine-silversulfadiazine (CH-SS)-impregnated CVC. Patient characteristics, CVC insertion site, indwelling time, and colonization detected by semiquantitative and quantitative microbiologic techniques were documented. Two-hundred-seventy-five critically ill patients were included into the study protocol. One-hundred-sixty standard, 160 silver (S)-coated, and 165 externally impregnated CH-SS CVC were inserted. There was a significant difference in CVC colonization rates among study groups (P = 0.029). There was no difference in the colonization rate and the colonization per 1000 catheter days between standard and S-coated (P = 0.564; P = 0.24) or CH-SS-coated CVC (P= 0.795; P = 0.639). When comparing antiseptic CVC with each other, colonization rates were significantly less with CH-SS-impregnated than with S-coated CVC (16.9% versus 7.3%; P = 0.01; 18.2 versus 7.5 of 1000 catheter days; P = 0.003; relative risk, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.85). Whereas standard and S-coated CVC were first colonized 2 and 3 days after insertion, respectively, CH-SS CVC were first colonized only after 7 days. In conclusion, antiseptic-impregnated CVC could not prevent catheter colonization when compared with standard polyurethane catheters in a critical care setting with infrequent catheter colonization rates and CVC left in place for >10 days.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Polderman KH, Girbes ARJ. Central venous catheter use. II. Infectious complications. Intensive Care Med 2002;28:18–28.
    1. Valles J, Leon C, Alvarez-Lerma F. Nosocomial bacteremia in critically ill patients: a European multicenter study evaluating epidemiology and prognosis—Spanish Collaborative Group for Infections in Intensive Care Units of Sociedad Espanola de Med Intensiva y Unidades Coronarias (SEMIUC). Clin Infect Dis 1997;24:387–95.
    1. Safdar N, Maki DG. The pathogenesis of catheter-related bloodstream infection with noncuffed short-term central venous catheters. Intensive Care Med 2004;30:62–7.
    1. Mermel LA. New technologies to prevent intravascular catheter-related bloodstream infections. Emerg Infect Dis 2001;7:197–9.
    1. Jansen B, Rinck M, Wolbring P, et al. In vitro evaluation of the antimicrobial efficacy and biocompatibility of a silver-coated central venous catheter. J Biomater Appl 1994;9:55–70.

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources