Bloodstream infection burden among cancer clinic patients with PICC Lines: A prospective, observational study

Jessica Bethlahmy, Hiroki Saito, Bardia Bahadori, Thomas Tjoa, Shereen Nourollahi, Mohamad Alsharif, Justin Chang, Linda Armendariz, Vincent Torres, Sandra Masson, Edward Nelson, Richard Van Etten, Syma Rashid, Raheeb Saavedra, Raveena D. Singh, Shruti Gohil
{"title":"Bloodstream infection burden among cancer clinic patients with PICC Lines: A prospective, observational study","authors":"Jessica Bethlahmy, Hiroki Saito, Bardia Bahadori, Thomas Tjoa, Shereen Nourollahi, Mohamad Alsharif, Justin Chang, Linda Armendariz, Vincent Torres, Sandra Masson, Edward Nelson, Richard Van Etten, Syma Rashid, Raheeb Saavedra, Raveena D. Singh, Shruti Gohil","doi":"10.1017/ash.2023.289","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Oncology patients are at high risk for bloodstream infection (BSI) due to immunosuppression and frequent use of central venous catheters. Surveillance in this population is largely relegated to inpatient settings and limited data are available describing community burden. We evaluated rates of BSI, clinic or emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalizations in a large cohort of oncology outpatients with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). Methods: In this prospective, observational study, we followed a convenience sample of adults (age>18) with PICCs at a large academic outpatient oncology clinic for 35 months between July 2015 and November 2018. We assessed demographics, malignancy type, PICC insertion and removal dates, history of prior PICC, and line duration. Outcomes included BSI events (defined as >1 positive blood cultures or >2 positive blood cultures if coagulase-negative Staphylococcus ), ED visits (without hospitalization), and unplanned hospitalizations (excluding scheduled chemotherapy hospitalizations). We used χ 2 analyses to compare the frequency of categorical outcomes, and we used unpaired t tests to assess differences in means of continuous variable in hematologic versus solid-tumor malignancy patients. We used generalized linear mixed-effects models to assess differences in BSI (clustered by patient) separately for gram-positive and gram-negative BSI outcomes. Results: Among 478 patients with 658 unique PICC lines and 64,190 line days, 271 patients (413 lines) had hematologic malignancy and 207 patients (232 lines) had solid-tumor malignancy. Cohort characteristics and outcomes stratified by malignancy type are shown in Table 1. Compared to those with hematologic malignancy, solid-tumor patients were older, had 47% fewer clinic visits, and had 32% lower frequency of prior PICC lines. Overall, there were 75 BSI events (12%; 1.2 per 1,000 catheter days). We detected no significant difference in BSI rates when comparing solid-tumor versus hematologic malignancies ( P = 0.20); BSIs with gram-positive pathogen were 69% higher in patients with solid tumors. Gram-negative BSIs were 41% higher in patients with hematologic malignancy. Solid-tumor malignancy was associated with 4.5-fold higher odds of developing BSI with gram-positive pathogen (OR, 4.48; 95% CI, 1.60–12.60; P = .005) compared to those with hematologic malignancy, after adjusting for age, sex, history of prior PICC, and line duration. Differences in gram-negative BSI were not significant on multivariate analysis. Conclusions: The burden of all-cause BSIs in cancer clinic adults with PICC lines was 12% or 1.2 per 1,000 catheter days, as high as nationally reported inpatient BSI rates. Higher risk of gram-positive BSIs in solid-tumor patients suggests the need for targeted infection prevention activities in this population, such as improvements in central-line monitoring, outpatient care, and maintenance of lines and/or dressings, as well as chlorhexidine bathing to reduce skin bioburden. Disclosures: None","PeriodicalId":7953,"journal":{"name":"Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology","volume":"154 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2023.289","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Oncology patients are at high risk for bloodstream infection (BSI) due to immunosuppression and frequent use of central venous catheters. Surveillance in this population is largely relegated to inpatient settings and limited data are available describing community burden. We evaluated rates of BSI, clinic or emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalizations in a large cohort of oncology outpatients with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). Methods: In this prospective, observational study, we followed a convenience sample of adults (age>18) with PICCs at a large academic outpatient oncology clinic for 35 months between July 2015 and November 2018. We assessed demographics, malignancy type, PICC insertion and removal dates, history of prior PICC, and line duration. Outcomes included BSI events (defined as >1 positive blood cultures or >2 positive blood cultures if coagulase-negative Staphylococcus ), ED visits (without hospitalization), and unplanned hospitalizations (excluding scheduled chemotherapy hospitalizations). We used χ 2 analyses to compare the frequency of categorical outcomes, and we used unpaired t tests to assess differences in means of continuous variable in hematologic versus solid-tumor malignancy patients. We used generalized linear mixed-effects models to assess differences in BSI (clustered by patient) separately for gram-positive and gram-negative BSI outcomes. Results: Among 478 patients with 658 unique PICC lines and 64,190 line days, 271 patients (413 lines) had hematologic malignancy and 207 patients (232 lines) had solid-tumor malignancy. Cohort characteristics and outcomes stratified by malignancy type are shown in Table 1. Compared to those with hematologic malignancy, solid-tumor patients were older, had 47% fewer clinic visits, and had 32% lower frequency of prior PICC lines. Overall, there were 75 BSI events (12%; 1.2 per 1,000 catheter days). We detected no significant difference in BSI rates when comparing solid-tumor versus hematologic malignancies ( P = 0.20); BSIs with gram-positive pathogen were 69% higher in patients with solid tumors. Gram-negative BSIs were 41% higher in patients with hematologic malignancy. Solid-tumor malignancy was associated with 4.5-fold higher odds of developing BSI with gram-positive pathogen (OR, 4.48; 95% CI, 1.60–12.60; P = .005) compared to those with hematologic malignancy, after adjusting for age, sex, history of prior PICC, and line duration. Differences in gram-negative BSI were not significant on multivariate analysis. Conclusions: The burden of all-cause BSIs in cancer clinic adults with PICC lines was 12% or 1.2 per 1,000 catheter days, as high as nationally reported inpatient BSI rates. Higher risk of gram-positive BSIs in solid-tumor patients suggests the need for targeted infection prevention activities in this population, such as improvements in central-line monitoring, outpatient care, and maintenance of lines and/or dressings, as well as chlorhexidine bathing to reduce skin bioburden. Disclosures: None
PICC系癌症临床患者血流感染负担:一项前瞻性观察性研究
背景:肿瘤患者由于免疫抑制和频繁使用中心静脉导管,是血液感染(BSI)的高危人群。对这一人群的监测主要局限于住院环境,描述社区负担的数据有限。我们评估了BSI、门诊或急诊科(ED)就诊率和住院率,这些患者都是接受外周中心导管(picc)治疗的肿瘤门诊患者。方法:在这项前瞻性观察性研究中,我们在2015年7月至2018年11月期间,在一家大型学术门诊肿瘤诊所随访了35个月的PICCs成人(18岁)。我们评估了人口统计学、恶性肿瘤类型、PICC插入和切除日期、既往PICC病史和疗程。结果包括BSI事件(定义为1个血培养阳性或2个血培养阳性,如果凝固酶阴性葡萄球菌)、ED就诊(未住院)和计划外住院(不包括计划的化疗住院)。我们使用χ 2分析来比较分类结果的频率,我们使用非配对t检验来评估血液学和实体肿瘤恶性患者中连续变量均值的差异。我们使用广义线性混合效应模型分别评估革兰氏阳性和革兰氏阴性BSI结果的BSI差异(按患者分组)。结果:在478例患者中,658个独特的PICC细胞系和64190个细胞系中,271例(413个细胞系)为血液学恶性肿瘤,207例(232个细胞系)为实体肿瘤恶性肿瘤。按恶性肿瘤类型分层的队列特征和结果见表1。与血液学恶性肿瘤患者相比,实体瘤患者年龄较大,就诊次数减少47%,既往PICC检出率降低32%。总的来说,有75例BSI事件(12%;1.2 / 1000导管天)。在比较实体瘤和血液恶性肿瘤时,我们发现BSI率无显著差异(P = 0.20);伴有革兰氏阳性病原体的bsi在实体瘤患者中高出69%。革兰氏阴性bsi在血液恶性肿瘤患者中高出41%。实体瘤恶性肿瘤伴革兰氏阳性病原体发生BSI的几率高出4.5倍(OR, 4.48;95% ci, 1.60-12.60;P = 0.005),在调整了年龄、性别、PICC既往病史和疗程后,与血液恶性肿瘤患者进行了比较。在多变量分析中,革兰氏阴性BSI差异无统计学意义。结论:PICC系癌症临床成人的全因BSI负担为12%或每1000个导管日1.2例,与全国报道的住院BSI率相同。实体瘤患者发生革兰氏阳性bsi的风险较高,这表明需要在这一人群中开展有针对性的感染预防活动,例如改进中央静脉监测、门诊护理、维持静脉和/或敷料,以及氯己定沐浴以减少皮肤生物负荷。披露:没有
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信