Retrospective Analysis of Microbial Colonization Patterns in Central Venous Catheters, 2013–2017

Abstract

Objectives. This study was performed to provide epidemiological information on microbial colonization in central venous catheters (CVCs). Methods. CVCs submitted to Medical Microbiology Laboratory from January 1, 2013, through October 1, 2017, which met our criteria would be included for analysis. Quantitative culture was used for CVCs. The results of culture and related information on CVCs were collected and recorded in detail. The prevalence was calculated, and related factors were analyzed statistically. Results. A total of 2020 CVCs were submitted for culture and eligible for analysis. Positive microbial culture occurred in 379 catheters with 18.7% (379 of 2020) prevalence of colonization. There were 23 microbial genera and 45 organisms detected. Among the isolated organisms, there were 39 kinds of isolated bacteria and 6 kinds of isolated fungi. Acinetobacter (19.8%) predominated in total isolated microorganisms, followed by Staphylococcus epidermidis (11.3%) and Candida albicans (10.3%). There were no significant differences in isolated organisms and fungal species between different sexes (X2 = 2.365, P=0.50). Conversely, there were significant differences in isolated bacterial and fungal species between different wards and years (X2 = 124.046, P=0.000; X2 = 77.064, P=0.000). A total of 107 (5.3%, 107/2020) CVCs were associated with a diagnosis of central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI). The most common organisms in causing CLABSI were Acinetobacter (23.4%), S. aureus (13.1%), and Candida albicans (12.1%). Conclusion. The prevalence of microbial colonization in CVCs is still significant and even has gradually changed over time. The study provides a new view of microbial colonization pattern in CVCs and a prevalence of CLABSI, which will facilitate catheter-related infection prevention and control in clinic.

Duration of central venous catheter placement and central line-associated bloodstream infections after the adoption of prevention bundles: a two-year retrospective study

“…In consistence with the international CLABSI pathogen distribution patterns available from numerous studies, causative microorganisms typically originate from the normal resident flora of the skin present at the insertion site, which are mostly consisting by gram-positives such as Staphylococcus spp, Streptococcus spp., Corynebacterium spp., and Candida spp. [22][23][24].However, later studies and data from our previous survey, support that CLABSIs caused by Gram-negatives either predominated in the panel of isolated organisms or exhibited growing trends [25][26][27]. In our study the epidemiology profile of CLABSI pathogens reflects the recently published Greek ICU pathogen profile, where MDR A. baumannii is frequently isolated [28].…”

Lower risk of bloodstream infections for peripherally inserted central catheters compared to central venous catheters in critically ill patients

“…Based on the international reports on CLABSI pathogen epidemiology available from numerous studies, causative microorganisms typically originate from the normal resident flora of the skin present at the insertion site, which are mostly consisting by gram-positives such as coagulase-negative staphylococci, and Corynebacterium spp [18][19][20]. However, previous studies report a change in CLABSI pathogen profile, with Gram-negatives either predominating in the panel of isolated organisms or displaying increasing trends [21][22][23]. This change in the types of pathogens could be attributed to the broad implementation of infection control programs targeting Gram-positive organisms [24].…”

Five-Year Surveillance of Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection in an Intensive Care Unit Population—A Retrospective Analysis

“…The literature has reported conflicting data regarding the risk of catheter infection for the three venous sites of catheterization. Most studies have indicated a higher risk at the femoral site and a lower risk at the subclavian site [15] [16] [17], whereas others have reported no difference [8] DOI: 10.4236/aid.2022.122023 292 Advances in Infectious Diseases [18] [19]. Many clinical practice guidelines have suggested that the femoral site should be avoided because of an anticipated higher risk of catheter-associated bloodstream infection; nonetheless, the preferred site for insertion is complex and depends on the skills of the operator.…”