Surveillance of central line associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) - comparison of current (CDC/NHSN) and modified criteria: A prospective study.

IF 1.5 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Durgesh Rai, Pravin Kumar, Poonam Gupta, Pardeep K Verma
{"title":"Surveillance of central line associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) - comparison of current (CDC/NHSN) and modified criteria: A prospective study.","authors":"Durgesh Rai, Pravin Kumar, Poonam Gupta, Pardeep K Verma","doi":"10.4103/joacp.joacp_393_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>There is a huge load of central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) being reported in developing countries, with increased mortality and healthcare costs. Effective surveillance is a must to reduce the incidence of CLABSI. The current criteria (Centre for Disease Control and Prevention/National Healthcare Safety Network [CDC/NHSN]) for CLABSI surveillance have their own shortcomings. For diagnosing CLABSI, current CDC/NHSN CLABSI surveillance criteria are laborious and time consuming with low predictive power. Hence, modified criteria have been postulated, which are simple and implementable at resource-constrained setups. The primary objective was to compare modified criteria with CDC criteria. The secondary objective was to determine the prevalence of CRBSI.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A total of 98 patients with central line <i>in situ</i> or having the central venous line removed ≤24 hrs prior to the date of the event were enrolled. Paired blood cultures were obtained and results were analyzed using differential time to positivity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The incidence of CLBSI was 8.16% and the device utilization rate was 11.6%. The negative predictive value of both the surveillance criteria was found to be excellent and comparable (96.2% for modified criteria and 97.1% for CDC criteria), therefore both can be used for screening purposes. AUC for current CDC/NHSN criteria was better than modified criteria (0.76 versus 0.66, <i>P</i> < 0.0001), suggesting it to be a better criterion for surveillance of CLABSI.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Modified criteria were not superior to CDC/NHSN criteria for surveillance. Thus, there is a scope of improving the modified criteria for the purpose of surveillance. CLBSI load was higher; CLABSI bundle for prevention is thus highly recommended.</p>","PeriodicalId":14946,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology","volume":"39 1","pages":"349-354"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10661645/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/joacp.joacp_393_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/11/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: There is a huge load of central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) being reported in developing countries, with increased mortality and healthcare costs. Effective surveillance is a must to reduce the incidence of CLABSI. The current criteria (Centre for Disease Control and Prevention/National Healthcare Safety Network [CDC/NHSN]) for CLABSI surveillance have their own shortcomings. For diagnosing CLABSI, current CDC/NHSN CLABSI surveillance criteria are laborious and time consuming with low predictive power. Hence, modified criteria have been postulated, which are simple and implementable at resource-constrained setups. The primary objective was to compare modified criteria with CDC criteria. The secondary objective was to determine the prevalence of CRBSI.

Material and methods: A total of 98 patients with central line in situ or having the central venous line removed ≤24 hrs prior to the date of the event were enrolled. Paired blood cultures were obtained and results were analyzed using differential time to positivity.

Results: The incidence of CLBSI was 8.16% and the device utilization rate was 11.6%. The negative predictive value of both the surveillance criteria was found to be excellent and comparable (96.2% for modified criteria and 97.1% for CDC criteria), therefore both can be used for screening purposes. AUC for current CDC/NHSN criteria was better than modified criteria (0.76 versus 0.66, P < 0.0001), suggesting it to be a better criterion for surveillance of CLABSI.

Conclusion: Modified criteria were not superior to CDC/NHSN criteria for surveillance. Thus, there is a scope of improving the modified criteria for the purpose of surveillance. CLBSI load was higher; CLABSI bundle for prevention is thus highly recommended.

中心线相关血流感染(CLBSI)的监测——现行(CDC/NHSN)和改良标准的比较:一项前瞻性研究
背景和目的:发展中国家报告了大量的中心线相关血流感染(CLBSI),死亡率和医疗费用都在增加。有效的监测是降低CLBSI发病率的必要条件。CLBSI监测的现行标准(疾病控制和预防中心/国家医疗安全网络[CADC/NHSN])有其自身的缺陷。对于诊断CLBSI,目前的CDC/NHSN CLBSI监测标准既费力又耗时,预测能力低。因此,已经假设了修改后的标准,这些标准在资源受限的设置中简单且可实现。主要目的是将修改后的标准与CDC标准进行比较。次要目的是确定CRBSI的患病率。材料和方法:共有98名患者在事件发生前≤24小时内原位植入中心静脉或移除中心静脉。获得成对的血液培养物,并使用差异阳性时间分析结果。结果:CLBSI的发生率为8.16%,器械使用率为11.6%。两种监测标准的阴性预测值都很好,具有可比性(改良标准为96.2%,CDC标准为97.1%),因此两者都可以用于筛查。当前CDC/NHSN标准的AUC优于改良标准(0.76对0.66,P<0.0001),表明它是监测CLBSI的更好标准。结论:改良后的监测标准并不优于美国疾病控制与预防中心/国家卫生服务网络的监测标准。因此,为了监督的目的,修改后的标准还有改进的余地。CLBSI负荷较高;因此,强烈建议使用CLBSI捆绑包进行预防。
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
1.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
129
期刊介绍: The JOACP publishes original peer-reviewed research and clinical work in all branches of anaesthesiology, pain, critical care and perioperative medicine including the application to basic sciences. In addition, the journal publishes review articles, special articles, brief communications/reports, case reports, and reports of new equipment, letters to editor, book reviews and obituaries. It is international in scope and comprehensive in coverage.
×
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