Submitted:
29 July 2024
Posted:
30 July 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design and Population
2.2. Ethical Approval and Informed Consent
2.3. Nurse-Led Quality Improvement CVC-Management Protocol
2.4. Central-Line Data
2.5. CVC Dressing Protocol
2.6. CVC-Associated Infectious Data
2.7. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1.1. Patient Population and Device Characteristics
3.1.2. Central-Line-Associated Infectious Events
3.1.3. Dressing and CVC Exit-Site Score
3.1.4. CVC Removal Infection-Related Indication
4. Discussion
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Public Involvement Statement
Guidelines and Standards Statement
Use of Artificial Intelligence:
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Cohen N, Rosenberg T, Rimon A, Friedman S. Early removal of a permanent catheter during the acute management of the unstable pediatric hemato-oncology patient with suspected catheter-related bloodstream infection: a multi-disciplinary survey and review of the literature. Eur J Pediatr. 2023;182(2):795-802.
- Hord JD, Lawlor J, Werner E, et al. Central line associated blood stream infections in pediatric hematology/oncology patients with different types of central lines. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2016; 63(9):1603–1607.
- Cellini M, Bergadano A, Crocoli A, et al. Guidelines of the Italian Association of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology for the management of the central venous access devices in pediatric patients with onco-hematological disease. J Vasc Access. 2022;23(1):3-17.
- Baskin KM, Mermel LA, Saad TF, et al. Evidence-based strategies and recommendations for preservation of central venous access in children. J Parenter Enter Nutr. 2019; 43: 591–614.
- Ullman AJ, Marsh N, Mihala G, et al. Complications of central venous access devices: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2015;136:e1331–e1344.
- Joo EJ, Kang CI, Ha YE, et al. Clinical outcome of catheter salvage in neutropenic cancer patients with catheter-related infection. Scand J Infect Dis. 2011;43(4):258-63.
- Garaventa A, Castagnola E, Dallorso S et al. Sepsis in children with malignant neoplasia, equipped with a Broviac-type venous catheter. Pediatr Med Chir. 1995;17(2):147–150.
- Pinon M, Bezzio S, Tovo PA, et al. A prospective 7-year survey on central venous catheter-related complications at a single pediatric hospital. Eur J Pediatr. 2009; 168: 1505– 1512.
- O’Grady NP, Alexander M, Burns LA, et al. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2011; 52: e162–e193.
- Fratino G, Molinari AC, Parodi S, et al. Central venous catheter-related complications in children with oncological/hematological diseases: an observational study of 418 devices. Ann Oncol. 2005; 16: 648–654.
- Scientific, The Italian Data Protection Authority. Authorization no. 9/2014 - General Authorisation to Process Personal Data for.
- 12. O'Grady NP, Alexander M, Burns LA, et al; Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/bsi/index.html. Accessed January 22, 2024.
- van den Bosch CH, Frakking FNJ, Loeffen YGT, et al. The applicability of the central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) criteria for the evaluation of bacteremia episodes in pediatric oncology patients. Eur J Haematol. 2024;112(5):832-839.
- Bell T, O'Grady NP. Prevention of Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2017;31(3):551-559.
- Cesaro S, Cavaliere M, Pegoraro A, Gamba P, Zadra N, Tridello G. A comprehensive approach to the prevention of central venous catheter complications: results of 10-year prospective surveillance in pediatric hematology-oncology patients. Ann Hematol. 2016;95(5):817-25.
- R Core Team (2023). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.
- Sjoberg DD, Whiting K, Curry M, Lavery JA, Larmarange J. Reproducible summary tables with the gtsummary package. The R Journal 2021 e 13:570–80. [CrossRef]
- Therneau T (2023). _A Package for Survival Analysis in R_. R package version 3.5-7, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=survival.
- Carraro F, Cicalese MP, Cesaro S, et al. Guidelines for the use of long-term central venous catheter in children with hemato-oncological disorders. On behalf of supportive therapy working group of Italian Association of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology (AIEOP). Ann Hematol. 2013;92(10):1405-12.
- GaVeCeLT, "Visual Exit Site Score" (2014) https://gavecelt.it/nuovo/sites/default/files/uploads/visual_exit_site_score.pdf.
- Lafuente Cabrero E, Terradas Robledo R, Civit Cuñado A, et al. Risk factors of catheter-associated bloodstream infection: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2023;18(3):e0282290.
- Alwazzeh MJ, Alnimr A, Al Nassri SA, et al. Microbiological trends and mortality risk factors of central line-associated bloodstream infections in an academic medical center 2015-2020. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2023;12(1):128.
- Dandoy CE, Hausfeld J, Flesch L, et al. Rapid cycle development of a multifactorial intervention achieved sustained reductions in central line-associated bloodstream infections in haematology oncology units at a children's hospital: a time series analysis. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Aug;25(8):633-43.


| Characteristic | Frequency |
|---|---|
| Sex2 | |
| Female | 121 (37.5%) |
| Male | 202 (62.5%) |
| Age (years)3 | 6.71 (2.95 - 11.90) |
| Duration of CVC (days) 3 | 228.0 (103.0 – 320.5) |
| Total CVC placements1 | |
| 1 CVC placement | 173 (72.4%) |
| 2 CVC placements | 50 (20.9%) |
| 3 CVC placements | 14 (5.9%) |
| 4 CVC placements | 2 (0.8%) |
| Lumen2 | |
| Monolumen | 175 (54.2%) |
| Bilumen | 148 (45.8%) |
| Diameter of CVC (French) 3 | 8.00 (6.00-9.00) |
| Diagnosis2 | |
| Acute lymphatic leukemia | 145 (44.9%) |
| Acute myeloid leukemia | 22 (6.8%) |
| Myelodysplastic syndromes | 26 (8.0%) |
| Non-malignant hematological diseases | 26 (8.0%) |
| Solid Tumors | 100 (31.0%) |
| Unknown | 4 |
| HSCT2 | |
| Yes | 122 (37.8%) |
| No | 201 (62.2%) |
| TPN2 | |
| Yes | 245 (75.9%) |
| No | 70 (21.7%) |
| Unknown | 8 |
| CVC model2 | |
| BARD - BROVIAC/HICKMAN | 210 (65.0%) |
| LIFECATH/VYGON | 47 (14.6%) |
| MEDCOMP | 52 (16.1%) |
| Other | 14 (4.3%) |
| Insertion side2 | |
| right | 237 (73.4%) |
| left | 85 (26.3%) |
| unknown | 1 |
| Vein2 | |
| Internal jugular | 169 (52.3%) |
| External jugular | 24 (7.4%) |
| Subclavian | 50 (15.5%) |
| Brachiocephalic | 64 (19.8%) |
| Other | 16 (5.0%) |
| Dressing setting 3 | |
| IRCCS Burlo Garofolo | 85.1 (52.71-100.0) |
| Satellite hospitals | 14.91 (0.0-47.29) |
| Dressing time interval (% of total dressings) 3 | |
| 1-6 days | 30.43 (22.2 – 45.7) |
| 7 days | 50.0 (36.6 – 60.1) |
| 8-10 days | 16.1 (8.9 – 24.2) |
|
1 Categorical variables: Frequency, percentage of patients (N=239). 2 Categorical variables: Frequency, percentage of CVC placements (N=323). 3 Continuous variables: Median, Interquartile range, of CVC placements (N=323). CVC: central venous catheter; HSCT: hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; TPN: total parenteral nutrition. |
| Characteristic | Not Infection, n = 2991 |
CRBSI, n = 241 |
p-value2 | OR (95%CI) 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient characteristics | ||||
| Age (years) | 6.9 (3.1, 12.0) | 4.1 (2.7, 10.3) | 0.2 | 0.95 (0.88,1.04) |
| Sex | 0.4 | 1.5 (0.6,3.72) | ||
| 0 - Female | 114 (38%) | 7 (29%) | ||
| 1 - Male | 185 (62%) | 17 (71%) | ||
| Diagnosis | 0.12 | |||
| 1 – Acute lymphoblastic leukemia | 139 (46%) | 6 (25%) | 0.042 | 1 |
| 2 – Acute myeloid leukemia | 20 (6.7%) | 2 (8.3%) | 0.7 | 2.32 (0.44,12.28) |
| 3 - Myelodysplastic syndromes | 22 (7.4%) | 4 (17%) | 0.11 | 4.21 (1.1,16.13) |
| 4 -Non-malignant hematological diseases | 22 (7.4%) | 4 (17%) | 0.11 | 4.21 (1.1,16.13) |
| 5 - Solid Tumors | 92 (31%) | 8 (33%) | 0.8 | 2.01 (0.68,6) |
| 6 - Unknown | 4 (1.3%) | 0 (0%) | >0.9 | 0 (0, Inf) |
| HSCT | 0.4 | 1.43 (0.62,3.31) | ||
| 0 - No | 188 (63%) | 13 (54%) | ||
| 1 - Yes | 111 (37%) | 11 (46%) | ||
| CVC characteristics | ||||
| CVC Model | 0.3 | |||
| 1 - BARD - BROVIAC/HICKMAN | 198 (66%) | 12 (50%) | 0.11 | 1 |
| 2 - LIFECATH/VYGON | 43 (14%) | 4 (17%) | 0.8 | 1.53 (0.47,4.99) |
| 3 - MEDCOMP | 46 (15%) | 6 (25%) | 0.2 | 2.15 (0.77,6.04) |
| 4 - COOK | 1 (0.3%) | 0 (0%) | >0.9 | 0 (0,Inf) |
| 5 - Unknown | 11 (3.7%) | 2 (8.3%) | 0.3 | 3 (0.6,15.09) |
| CVC type | >0.9 | |||
| 1 - CICC | 277 (93%) | 23 (96%) | >0.9 | 1 |
| 2 - PICC | 13 (4.3%) | 1 (4.2%) | >0.9 | 0.93 (0.12,7.4) |
| 3 - FICC | 1 (0.3%) | 0 (0%) | >0.9 | 0 (0,Inf) |
| 4 - PORT | 8 (2.7%) | 0 (0%) | >0.9 | 0 (0,Inf) |
| CVC life and use | ||||
| CVC duration (days) | 237 (111, 325) | 163 (58, 272) | 0.1 | 1.00 (0.995,1.01) |
| TPN | 0.2 | 0.48 (0.14,1.65) | ||
| 0 - No | 224 (77%) | 21 (88%) | ||
| 1 - Yes | 67 (23%) | 3 (13%) | ||
| Unknown | 8 | 0 | ||
| At least one occlusion | 0.9 | 0.95 (0.41,2.18) | ||
| 0 - No | 133 (44%) | 11 (46%) | ||
| 1 - Yes | 166 (56%) | 13 (54%) | ||
| Dressing setting | ||||
| - IRCCS Burlo Garofolo | 81 (52, 100) | 100 (69, 100) | 0.046 | |
| - Satellite hospitals | 19 (0,48) | 0 (0,31) | 0.046 | |
| Dressing time interval (% of total dressings) | ||||
| - 1-6 days | 30 (22,43) | 50 (37, 68) | <0.001 | |
| - 7 days | 50 (38, 61) | 31 (11, 45) | <0.001 | |
| - 8-10 days | 16 (9, 24) | 12 (5, 28) | 0.3 | |
| 1 Categorical variables: n (%); Continuous variables: Median (IQR) | ||||
|
2 Fisher’s exact test; Wilcoxon rank sum test; Pearson’s Chi-squared test 3 Univariate Logistic Regression CRISBI: catheter-related bloodstream infection; HSCT: Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; TPN: Total Parenteral Nutrition |
||||
| Characteristics | No infection, n = 2721 |
CLABSI, n = 511 |
p-value2 | CVC removal for non-infection reasons, n = 2921 |
CVC removal for infection reasons, n = 311 |
p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 7.1 (3.1, 12.1) | 4.3 (2.3, 10.3) | 0.085 | 6.7 (3.0, 11.9) | 6.0 (2.9, 11.5) | 0.7 |
| Sex | 0.7 | 0.8 | ||||
| 0 - Female | 103 (38%) | 18 (35%) | 110 (38%) | 11 (35%) | ||
| 1 - Male | 169 (62%) | 33 (65%) | 182 (62%) | 20 (65%) | ||
| Diagnosis | 0.6 | 0.12 | ||||
| 1 – Acute lymphoblastic leukemia | 126 (46%) | 19 (37%) | 0.2 | 137 (47%) | 8 (26%) | 0.025 |
| 2 – Acute myeloid leukemia | 18 (6.6%) | 4 (7.8%) | 0.8 | 19 (6.5%) | 3 (9.7%) | 0.5 |
| 3 - Myelodysplastic syndromes | 20 (7.4%) | 6 (12%) | 0.3 | 22 (7.5%) | 4 (13%) | 0.3 |
| 4 - Non-malignant hematological diseases | 20 (7.4%) | 6 (12%) | 0.3 | 21 (7.2%) | 5 (16%) | 0.089 |
| 5 - Solid tumors | 84 (31%) | 16 (31%) | >0.9 | 89 (30%) | 11 (35%) | 0.6 |
| 6 - Unknown | 4 (1.5%) | 0 (0%) | >0.9 | 4 (1.4%) | 0 (0%) | >0.9 |
| CVC Model | 0.5 | 0.7 | ||||
| 1 - BARD - BROVIAC/HICKMAN | 178 (65%) | 32 (63%) | 0.7 | 190 (65%) | 20 (65%) | >0.9 |
| 2 - LIFECATH/VYGON | 42 (15%) | 5 (9.8%) | 0.3 | 44 (15%) | 3 (9.7%) | 0.6 |
| 3 - MEDCOMP | 41 (15%) | 11 (22%) | 0.2 | 46 (16%) | 6 (19%) | 0.6 |
| 4 - COOK | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | >0.9 | 1 (0.3%) | 0 (0%) | >0.9 |
| 5 - Unknown | 10 (3.7%) | 3 (5.9%) | 0.4 | 11 (3.8%) | 2 (6.5%) | 0.4 |
| CVC type | >0.9 | 0.9 | ||||
| 1 - CICC | 251 (92%) | 49 (96%) | 0.6 | 271 (93%) | 29 (94%) | >0.9 |
| 2 - PICC | 13 (4.8%) | 1 (2.0%) | 0.7 | 13 (4.5%) | 1 (3.2%) | >0.9 |
| 3 - FICC | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | >0.9 | 1 (0.3%) | 0 (0%) | >0.9 |
| 4 - Port-a-Cath | 7 (2.6%) | 1 (2.0%) | >0.9 | 7 (2.4%) | 1 (3.2%) | 0.6 |
| Power Injectable CVC | 0.4 | 0.6 | ||||
| 0 - No | 222 (82%) | 39 (76%) | 237 (81%) | 24 (77%) | ||
| 1 - Yes | 50 (18%) | 12 (24%) | 55 (19%) | 7 (23%) | ||
| Insertion Method | 0.3 | 0.6 | ||||
| 0 - Percutaneous | 232 (88%) | 42 (82%) | 248 (87%) | 26 (84%) | ||
| 1 - Surgical | 33 (12%) | 9 (18%) | 37 (13%) | 5 (16%) | ||
| Unknown | 7 | 0 | 7 | 0 | ||
| Eco-assisted insertion | 0.9 | 0.3 | ||||
| 0 - No | 69 (27%) | 14 (29%) | 77 (29%) | 6 (19%) | ||
| 1 - Yes | 183 (73%) | 35 (71%) | 193 (71%) | 25 (81%) | ||
| Unknown | 20 | 2 | 22 | 0 | ||
| Insertion Complications | 0.3 | 0.3 | ||||
| 0 - No | 253 (93%) | 45 (88%) | 271 (93%) | 27 (87%) | ||
| 1 - Yes | 19 (7.0%) | 6 (12%) | 21 (7.2%) | 4 (13%) | ||
| Subcutaneous Anchor Securement System | 0.6 | >0.9 | ||||
| 0 - No | 247 (91%) | 45 (88%) | 264 (90%) | 28 (90%) | ||
| 1 - Yes | 25 (9.2%) | 6 (12%) | 28 (9.6%) | 3 (9.7%) | ||
| Insertion side | 0.6 | >0.9 | ||||
| 0 - Right | 201 (74%) | 36 (71%) | 214 (74%) | 23 (74%) | ||
| 1 - Left | 70 (26%) | 15 (29%) | 77 (26%) | 8 (26%) | ||
| Unknown | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||
| N. Lumen | 0.7 | >0.9 | ||||
| 1 | 146 (54%) | 29 (57%) | 158 (54%) | 17 (55%) | ||
| 2 | 126 (46%) | 22 (43%) | 134 (46%) | 14 (45%) | ||
| Diameter (French) | 6.60 (6.00, 7.00) | 6.60 (5.00, 7.00) | 0.3 | 6.60 (5.75, 7.00) | 6.60 (6.00, 7.00) | 0.5 |
| CVC duration (days) | 234 (112, 326) | 204 (59, 306) | 0.2 | 238 (112, 326) | 140 (45, 274) | 0.019 |
| HSCT | 0.8 | 0.4 | ||||
| 0 - No | 170 (63%) | 31 (61%) | 184 (63%) | 17 (55%) | ||
| 1 - Yes | 102 (38%) | 20 (39%) | 108 (37%) | 14 (45%) | ||
| TPN | 0.8 | 0.2 | ||||
| 0 - No | 207 (78%) | 38 (79%) | 218 (77%) | 27 (87%) | ||
| 1 - Yes | 60 (22%) | 10 (21%) | 66 (23%) | 4 (13%) | ||
| Unknown | 5 | 3 | 8 | 0 | ||
| Occlusions, number | 1.00 (0.00, 3.00) | 1.00 (0.00, 2.00) | 0.3 | 1.00 (0.00, 3.00) | 0.00 (0.00, 2.00) | 0.3 |
| Complete Occlusions, number | 0.00 (0.00, 1.00) | 0.00 (0.00, 1.00) | 0.3 | 0.00 (0.00, 1.00) | 0.00 (0.00, 1.00) | 0.4 |
| 1 number (%); Median (IQR) | ||||||
| 2 Pearson’s Chi-squared test; Wilcoxon rank sum test; Fisher’s exact test |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).