Long-term central venous catheter-related candidemia: A new approach towards diagnosis and management

A case-series analysis of approximately 811 cancer patients who developed Candidemia between 1989 and 1998 and seen at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, was studied to assess the impact and timing of central venous catheter (CVC) removal on the outcome of fungal bloodstream infections in cancer patients with primary catheter-related Candidemia as well as secondary infections. ^ This study explored the diagnosis and the management of vascular catheter-associated fungemia in patients with cancer. The microbiologic and clinical factors were determined to predict catheter-related Candidemia. Those factors included, in addition to basic demographics, the underlying malignancy, chemotherapy, neutropenia, and other salient data. Statistical analyses included univariate and multivariate logistic regression to determine the outcome of Candidemia in relation to the timing of catheter removal, type of species, and to identify predictors of catheter-related infections. ^ The conclusions of the study aim at enhancing our mastery of issues involving CVC removal and potentially will have an impact on the management of nosocomial bloodstream infections related to timing of CVC removal and the optimal duration of treatment of catheter-related Candidemia. ^

The cost effective management of Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections (CLABSIs) comparing the central line bundle to antimicrobialcoated central venous catheters: A systematic review

Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections (CLABSIs) are one of the most costly and preventable cases of morbidity and mortality among intensive care units (ICUs) in health care today. In 2008, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Medicare Program, under the Deficit Reduction Act, announced it will no longer reimburse hospitals for such adverse events among those related to CLABSIs. This reveals the financial burden shift onto the hospital rather than the health care payer who can now withhold reimbursements. With this weighing more heavily on hospital management, decision makers will need to find a way to completely prevent cases of CLABSI or simply pay for the financial consequences. ^ To reduce the risk of CLABSIs, several clinical, preventive interventions have been studied and even instituted including the Central Line (CL) Bundle and Antimicrobial Coated Central Venous Catheters (AM-CVCs). I carried out a formal systematic review on the topic to compare the cost-effectiveness of the Central Line (CL) Bundle to the commercially available antimicrobial coated central venous catheters (AM-CVCs) in preventing CLABSIs among critically and chronically ill patients in the U.S. Evidence was assessed for inclusion against predefined criteria. I, myself, conducted the data extraction. Ten studies were included in the review. Efficacy in reducing the mean incidence rate of CLABSI by the CL Bundle and AM-CVC interventions were compared with one another including costs. ^ The AM-CVC impregnated with antibiotics, rifampin-minocycline (AI-RM) is more clinically effective than the CL Bundle in reducing the mean rate of CLABSI per 1,000 catheter days. The lowest mean incidence rate of CLABSI per 1,000 catheter days among the AM-CVC studies was as low as zero in favor of the AI-RM. Moreover, the review revealed that the AI-RM appears to be more cost-effective than the CL Bundle. Results showed the adjusted incremental cost of the CL Bundle per ICU patient requiring a CVC to be approximately $196 while the AI-RM at only an additional cost of $48 per ICU patient requiring a CVC. ^ Limited data regarding the cost of the CL Bundle made it difficult to make a true comparison to the direct cost of the AM-CVCs. However, using the result I did have from this review, I concluded that the AM-CVCs do appear to be more cost-effective in decreasing the mean rate of CLABSI while also minimizing incremental costs per CVC than the CL Bundle. This review calls for further research addressing the cost of the CL Bundle and compliance and more effective study designs such as randomized control trials comparing the efficacy and cost of the CL Bundle to the AM-CVCs. Barriers that may face health care managers when implementing the CL Bundle or AM-CVCs include additional costs associated with the intervention, educational training and ongoing reinforcement as well as creating a new culture of understanding.^