Effectiveness of Vascular Catheter Removal Versus Retention in Non-ICU Patients with CRBSI or CABSI in Retrospective, Single-Center Study.

IF 4.1 2区 生物学 Q2 MICROBIOLOGY
Giovanni De Capitani, Marta Colaneri, Claudia Conflitti, Fabio Borgonovo, Lucia Galli, Giovanni Scaglione, Camilla Genovese, Rebecca Fattore, Monica Schiavini, Beatrice Caloni, Daniele Zizzo, Nicola Busatto, Antonio Gidaro, Alba Taino, Maria Calloni, Francesco Casella, Arianna Bartoli, Chiara Cogliati, Emanuele Palomba, Spinello Antinori, Andrea Gori, Antonella Foschi
{"title":"Effectiveness of Vascular Catheter Removal Versus Retention in Non-ICU Patients with CRBSI or CABSI in Retrospective, Single-Center Study.","authors":"Giovanni De Capitani, Marta Colaneri, Claudia Conflitti, Fabio Borgonovo, Lucia Galli, Giovanni Scaglione, Camilla Genovese, Rebecca Fattore, Monica Schiavini, Beatrice Caloni, Daniele Zizzo, Nicola Busatto, Antonio Gidaro, Alba Taino, Maria Calloni, Francesco Casella, Arianna Bartoli, Chiara Cogliati, Emanuele Palomba, Spinello Antinori, Andrea Gori, Antonella Foschi","doi":"10.3390/microorganisms13051085","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Catheter-associated bloodstream infections (CABSIs) and catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) are significant causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The current practice favors the removal of vascular access devices (VADs); however, the evidence on this topic remains inconclusive. This study evaluates the clinical outcomes in terms of in-hospital mortality and catheter retention vs. removal in CABSI and CRBSI cases. A retrospective, observational, single-center study was conducted at Luigi Sacco Hospital, Milan, Italy (May 2021-December 2023), and it analyzed non-ICU adult patients with VADs diagnosed with CRBSIs or CABSIs. Clinical and microbiological data were collected to assess the outcomes based on catheter management. Among 1874 patients with VADs, 147 were included, with 164 VAD infection events (92 CABSIs and 72 CRBSIs). Overall, 35 (23.8%) patients with CABSIs and CRBSIs died. Out of those who retained the catheter 19 (35.8%) patients died, while among removal patients 16 (17%) died (<i>p</i> = 0.018). A <i>Candida</i> spp. isolation was found to be significantly associated with a higher likelihood of catheter removal (<i>p</i> = 0.04). Our findings suggest that, in non-ICU CRBSI and CABSI cases, VAD removal may be associated with improved outcomes when feasible.</p>","PeriodicalId":18667,"journal":{"name":"Microorganisms","volume":"13 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Microorganisms","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms13051085","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Catheter-associated bloodstream infections (CABSIs) and catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) are significant causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The current practice favors the removal of vascular access devices (VADs); however, the evidence on this topic remains inconclusive. This study evaluates the clinical outcomes in terms of in-hospital mortality and catheter retention vs. removal in CABSI and CRBSI cases. A retrospective, observational, single-center study was conducted at Luigi Sacco Hospital, Milan, Italy (May 2021-December 2023), and it analyzed non-ICU adult patients with VADs diagnosed with CRBSIs or CABSIs. Clinical and microbiological data were collected to assess the outcomes based on catheter management. Among 1874 patients with VADs, 147 were included, with 164 VAD infection events (92 CABSIs and 72 CRBSIs). Overall, 35 (23.8%) patients with CABSIs and CRBSIs died. Out of those who retained the catheter 19 (35.8%) patients died, while among removal patients 16 (17%) died (p = 0.018). A Candida spp. isolation was found to be significantly associated with a higher likelihood of catheter removal (p = 0.04). Our findings suggest that, in non-ICU CRBSI and CABSI cases, VAD removal may be associated with improved outcomes when feasible.

回顾性单中心研究:非icu CRBSI或CABSI患者血管导管拔除与保留的有效性
导管相关血流感染(CABSIs)和导管相关血流感染(CRBSIs)是世界范围内发病率和死亡率的重要原因。目前的做法倾向于移除血管通路装置(vad);然而,关于这个话题的证据仍然没有定论。本研究评估了CABSI和CRBSI病例的住院死亡率和导管保留与拔除的临床结果。一项回顾性、观察性、单中心研究于2021年5月至2023年12月在意大利米兰的Luigi Sacco医院进行,分析了诊断为CRBSIs或CABSIs的非icu成年vad患者。收集临床和微生物数据,以评估基于导管管理的结果。在1874例VAD患者中,147例纳入,164例VAD感染事件(92例cabsi和72例crbsi)。总体而言,35例(23.8%)cabsi和crbsi患者死亡。留置导管患者死亡19例(35.8%),拔除导管患者死亡16例(17%)(p = 0.018)。念珠菌分离与导管拔除的可能性显著相关(p = 0.04)。我们的研究结果表明,在非icu CRBSI和CABSI病例中,在可行的情况下,移除VAD可能与改善预后有关。
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
Microorganisms
Microorganisms Medicine-Microbiology (medical)
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
6.70%
发文量
2168
审稿时长
20.03 days
期刊介绍: Microorganisms (ISSN 2076-2607) is an international, peer-reviewed open access journal which provides an advanced forum for studies related to prokaryotic and eukaryotic microorganisms, viruses and prions. It publishes reviews, research papers and communications. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. Electronic files and software regarding the full details of the calculation or experimental procedure, if unable to be published in a normal way, can be deposited as supplementary electronic material.
×
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