Background Prolonged catheter use is controversial because of the risk of catheter-related infection, but the extent to which the risk increases over time remains unknown. We thus assessed the time-dependence of catheter-related infection risk up to 15 days. Methods Our analysis was based on the German Network for Regional Anesthesia, which includes 25 centers. We considered 44,555 patients who had surgery between 2007 and 2014 and had continuous regional anesthesia as well as complete covariable details. Cox regression analysis was performed and adjusted for confounding covariables to examine the relationship between catheter duration and probability of infection-free catheter use. Results After adjustment for confounding factors, the probability of infection-free catheter use decreases with each day of peripheral and epidural catheter use. In peripheral catheters, it was 99% at day 4 of catheter duration, 96% at day 7, and 73% at day 15. In epidural catheters, it was 99% at day 4 of catheter duration, 95% at day 7, and 73% at day 15. Only 31 patients (0.07%) had severe infections that prompted surgical intervention. Among these were five catheters that initially had only mild or moderate signs of infection and were left in situ; all progressed to severe infections. Conclusions Infection risk in catheter use increases over time, especially after four days. Infected catheters should be removed as soon as practical.

IntroductionHip fracture surgery is associated with high in-hospital and 30-day mortality rates and serious adverse patient outcomes. Evidence from randomised controlled trials regarding effectiveness of spinal versus general anaesthesia on patient-centred outcomes after hip fracture surgery is sparse.Methods and analysisThe iHOPE study is a pragmatic national, multicentre, randomised controlled, open-label clinical trial with a two-arm parallel group design. In total, 1032 patients with hip fracture (>65 years) will be randomised in an intended 1:1 allocation ratio to receive spinal anaesthesia (n=516) or general anaesthesia (n=516). Outcome assessment will occur in a blinded manner after hospital discharge and inhospital. The primary endpoint will be assessed by telephone interview and comprises the time to the first occurring event of the binary composite outcome of all-cause mortality or new-onset serious cardiac and pulmonary complications within 30 postoperative days. In-hospital secondary endpoints, assessed via in-person interviews and medical record review, include mortality, perioperative adverse events, delirium, satisfaction, walking independently, length of hospital stay and discharge destination. Telephone interviews will be performed for long-term endpoints (all-cause mortality, independence in walking, chronic pain, ability to return home cognitive function and overall health and disability) at postoperative day 30±3, 180±45 and 365±60.Ethics and disseminationiHOPE has been approved by the leading Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the RWTH Aachen University on 14 March 2018 (EK 022/18). Approval from all other involved local Ethical Committees was subsequently requested and obtained. Study started in April 2018 with a total recruitment period of 24 months. iHOPE will be disseminated via presentations at national and international scientific meetings or conferences and publication in peer-reviewed international scientific journals.Trial registration numberDRKS00013644; Pre-results

An additional test dose via the catheter is recommended if the indwelling catheter is inserted after injection of the local anesthetics through the puncture needle. If epidural anesthesia occurs, an x-ray of the catheter is advisable because negative aspiration via catheter does not rule out subarachnoid catheter location.

No abstract

Use of ultrasound alone reduced the odds of vascular and multiple skin punctures. However, the sole use of ultrasound increases the odds of paresthesia.

No abstract

No abstract

Infectious complications of catheter-based regional anaesthesia are common. Strict hygienic standards must therefore be complied with. More data are necessary to calculate risk factors. The registry provided can also be used as a benchmark to reduce these rates further.