41
Views
14
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Papers

What Really Affects the Incidence of Central Venous Catheter-Related Infections for Short-Term Catheterization ?

, &
Pages 256-258 | Published online: 14 Mar 2016

References

  • Linares J., Sitges-Serra A., Garau J., Perez J. L., Martin R. Pathogenesis of catheter sepsis: a prospective study with quantitative and semiquantitative cultures of catheter hub and segments. J Clin Microbiol, 1985, 21: 357–60.
  • Smith R. L., Shepherd M. Central venous catheter infection rates in an acute care hospital. J Intraven Nurs, 1995, 8: 255–62.
  • Raad II, Darouiche R. O. Catheter related septicemia: Risk reduction. Infect Med, 1996, 13: 807–16.
  • Pemberton L. B., Ross V., Cuddy P., Kremer H., Fessler T., McGurk E. No difference in catheter sepsis between standart and antiseptic central venous catheters. Arch Surg, 1996, 131: 986–9.
  • Sitges-Serra A., Linares J., Garau J. Catheter sepsis: The clue is the hub. Surgery, 1985, 97: 355–7.
  • Maki D. G., Weise C. E., Sarafin H. W. A semiqantitative culture method for identifying intravenous-catheter related infection. New Engl J Med, 1977, 296: 1305–9.
  • Sitges-Serra A., Puig P., Linares J. et al. Hub colonization as the initial step in an outbreak of catheter-related sepsis due to coagulase negative staphylococci during parenteral nutrition. J Parenter Enteral Nutr, 1984, 8: 668–72.
  • Reed C. R., Sessler C. N., Glauser F. L., Phelan B. A. Central venous catheter infections: concepts and controversies. Intensive Care Med, 1995, 21: 177–83.
  • McCarthy M. C., Shives J. K., Robison R. J., Broadie T. A. Prospective evaluation of single and triple lumen catheters in total parenteral nutrition. J Parenter Enteral Nutr, 1987. 11: 259–62.
  • Pemberton L. B., Lyman B., Lander V., Covinsky J. Sepsis from triplevs single-lumen catheters during parenteral nutrition in surgical and critically ill patients. Arch Surg, 1986, 121: 591–4.
  • Sherertz R. J., Falk R. J., Huffman K. A., Thomann C. A., Matternn C. A. Infections associated with subclavian Uldall catheters. Arch Intern Med, 1983, 143: 52–6.
  • Bernard R. W., Stah W. M., Chase R. M. Subclavian vein catheterizations: A prospective study. II. Infectious complications. Ann Surg, 1971, 173: 191–200.
  • Andersen P. T., Herlevsen P., Schaumburg H. A comparative study of «Op-site» and «Nobecutam gauze» dressings for central venous line care. J Hosp Infect, 1986, 7: 161–8.
  • Craven D. E., Lichtenberg D. A., Kunches L. M. et al. A randomized study comparing a transparent polyurethane dressing to a dry gauze dressing for peripheral intravenous catheter sites. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol, 1985, 6: 361–6.
  • Kamal G. D., Pfaller M. A., Rempe L. E., Jebson P. J. R. Reduced intravascular catheter infection by antibiotic bonding. JAMA, 1991, 262: 2364–8.
  • Maki D. G., Goldmann D. A., Rhame F. S. Infection control in intravenous therapy. Ann Intern Med, 1973, 79: 867–87.
  • Forse R. A., Dixon R. N., Bernard K., Martinez L., McLean A. P. H., Meakins J. L. Staphylococcus epidermidis: An important pathogen. Surgery, 1979, 86: 507–14.
  • Ricard P., Martin R., Marcoux J. A. Protection of indwelling vascular catheters: incidence of bacterial contamination and catheter-related sepsis. Crit Care Med, 1985, 13: 541–3.
  • Palidar P. J., Simonowitz D. A., Oreskovich M. R. et al. Use of op site as an occlusive dressing for total parenteral nutrition catheters. J Parenter Enteral Nutr, 1982, 6: 150–1.
  • Flowers III R. H., Shewenzer K. J., Kopel R. F., Fisch M. J., Tucker S. I. Efficacy of an attachable subcutaneus cuff for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infection. JAMA, 1989, 261: 878–83.
  • Maki D. G., Band J. D. A comparative study of polyantibiotic and iodophor oinments in prevention of vascular catheter-related infection. Am J Med, 1981, 70: 739–44.
  • Hampton A. A., Sherertz R. J. Vascular-access infections in hospitalized patients. Surg Clin North Am, 1988, 68: 57–71.
  • Maki D. G., Botticelli J. T., Le Roy M. L., Thielke T. S. Prospective study of replacing administration sets for intravenous therapy at 48-vs 72-hour intervals. 72 hours is safe and cost-effective. JAMA, 1987, 258: 1777–81.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.