Alcohol-impregnated port protectors to reduce central line-associated bloodstream infection in the neonatal intensive care unit: a quality improvement study.

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 PEDIATRICS
Victoria Payne, Mike Hall, Mark John Johnson
{"title":"Alcohol-impregnated port protectors to reduce central line-associated bloodstream infection in the neonatal intensive care unit: a quality improvement study.","authors":"Victoria Payne, Mike Hall, Mark John Johnson","doi":"10.1136/archdischild-2024-327651","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate the effect of alcohol-impregnated port protectors (AIPPs) on neonatal central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A quality improvement study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>A tertiary neonatal unit in the UK.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Babies >72 hours of age with a central line.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>AIPPs were applied to intravascular access ports not allocated for fluid infusion from March 2018 to February 2020. Daily audits were performed for 3 months postimplementation, with quarterly audits thereafter.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>CLABSI rates were calculated preimplementation and postimplementation with a 3-month washout period (March-May 2018). Logistic regression was used to analyse the risk of CLABSIs between periods, adjusting for important differences between cohorts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no difference in overall CLABSI rates per 1000 central lines days between the preimplementation and postimplementation periods (5.5 vs 6.6, p=0.5). However, rates of CLABSI involving confirmed pathogens rather than coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (CoNS) were higher postimplementation (0.5 vs 2.7, p=0.012). After adjusting for birth weight, gestational age at birth, gender, central line duration and length of stay, there were no significant differences in the overall risk of CLABSI between the two periods (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.91, p=0.886) or the risk of CLABSI involving pathogens (OR 3.54 95% CI 0.77 to 16.06, p=0.102) or CoNS (OR 0.76 95% CI 0.39 to 1.46, p=0.406).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>AIPPs did not result in reduced CLABSI rates. The use of AIPPs cannot currently be recommended.</p>","PeriodicalId":8177,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2024-327651","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the effect of alcohol-impregnated port protectors (AIPPs) on neonatal central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates.

Design: A quality improvement study.

Setting: A tertiary neonatal unit in the UK.

Patients: Babies >72 hours of age with a central line.

Intervention: AIPPs were applied to intravascular access ports not allocated for fluid infusion from March 2018 to February 2020. Daily audits were performed for 3 months postimplementation, with quarterly audits thereafter.

Main outcome measures: CLABSI rates were calculated preimplementation and postimplementation with a 3-month washout period (March-May 2018). Logistic regression was used to analyse the risk of CLABSIs between periods, adjusting for important differences between cohorts.

Results: There was no difference in overall CLABSI rates per 1000 central lines days between the preimplementation and postimplementation periods (5.5 vs 6.6, p=0.5). However, rates of CLABSI involving confirmed pathogens rather than coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (CoNS) were higher postimplementation (0.5 vs 2.7, p=0.012). After adjusting for birth weight, gestational age at birth, gender, central line duration and length of stay, there were no significant differences in the overall risk of CLABSI between the two periods (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.91, p=0.886) or the risk of CLABSI involving pathogens (OR 3.54 95% CI 0.77 to 16.06, p=0.102) or CoNS (OR 0.76 95% CI 0.39 to 1.46, p=0.406).

Conclusions: AIPPs did not result in reduced CLABSI rates. The use of AIPPs cannot currently be recommended.

酒精浸渍端口保护器减少新生儿重症监护病房中心静脉相关血流感染:一项质量改进研究
目的:探讨酒精浸渍端口保护剂(AIPPs)对新生儿中心线相关血流感染(CLABSI)发生率的影响。设计:质量改进研究。环境:在英国的第三新生儿单位。患者:婴儿出生72小时,有中心静脉导管。干预措施:2018年3月至2020年2月,aipp应用于未分配输液的血管内通道端口。实施后3个月每天进行审计,之后每季度进行审计。主要结局指标:计算实施前和实施后CLABSI率,并进行3个月的洗脱期(2018年3月至5月)。采用Logistic回归分析不同时期CLABSIs的风险,调整队列之间的重要差异。结果:在实施前和实施后期间,每1000中心线天的总CLABSI率没有差异(5.5 vs 6.6, p=0.5)。然而,与凝固酶阴性葡萄球菌(con)相比,强化后CLABSI涉及确诊病原体的比率更高(0.5 vs 2.7, p=0.012)。在调整出生体重、出生胎龄、性别、中心线持续时间和住院时间后,两个时期CLABSI的总体风险(OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.57至1.91,p=0.886)或CLABSI涉及病原体的风险(OR 3.54 95% CI 0.77至16.06,p=0.102)或con (OR 0.76 95% CI 0.39至1.46,p=0.406)均无显著差异。结论:AIPPs不能降低CLABSI发生率。目前不建议使用aipp。
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
CiteScore
9.00
自引率
4.50%
发文量
90
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Archives of Disease in Childhood is an international peer review journal that aims to keep paediatricians and others up to date with advances in the diagnosis and treatment of childhood diseases as well as advocacy issues such as child protection. It focuses on all aspects of child health and disease from the perinatal period (in the Fetal and Neonatal edition) through to adolescence. ADC includes original research reports, commentaries, reviews of clinical and policy issues, and evidence reports. Areas covered include: community child health, public health, epidemiology, acute paediatrics, advocacy, and ethics.
×
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