From the publishers of The New England Journal of Medicine

Save time and stay informed. Our physician-editors offer you clinical perspectives on key research and news.

  1. Home>
  2. Specialties>
  3. General Medicine>
  4. Summary and Comment

Reducing Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections

In one U.S. state, systematic implementation of a set of five interventions led to a striking reduction in infection rates.

Catheter-related bloodstream infections are a preventable cause of morbidity and mortality. In this study, 67 hospitals in Michigan — accounting for 85% of intensive care unit (ICU) beds in that state — participated in a statewide patient safety initiative, one component of which was to reduce rates of central venous catheter–related bloodstream infections in the ICU.

Each hospital systematically implemented and monitored a set of five interventions in its ICUs: hand washing, using full-barrier precautions during insertion of central venous catheters, cleansing the catheter insertion site with chlorhexidine, avoiding femoral vein catheter sites, and removing unnecessary catheters. Before the intervention, the median rate of catheter-related bloodstream infections was 2.7 per 1000 catheter-days in these ICUs. After the intervention was implemented, and for 18 months thereafter, the median rate dropped to 0; the mean rate was 7.7 at baseline, and decreased to 1.4.

Comment: In this study, a statewide intervention resulted in a striking reduction in catheter-related bloodstream infections. This trial was not randomized, but the results are convincing: The intervention incorporated a set of evidence-based procedures known to prevent bloodstream infections. Although no formal cost analysis was done, the authors present data suggesting that this intervention would likely save money in addition to reducing morbidity.

— Allan S. Brett, MD

Published in Journal Watch General Medicine December 27, 2006

Citation(s):

Pronovost P et al. An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU. N Engl J Med 2006 Dec 28; 355:2725-32.

Your Remark:

Reader Remarks are intended to encourage lively discussion of clinical topics with your peers in the medical community. Please consider this when composing your remark.

Fields marked with an * are required.

Name as you'd like it to appear:

Submitting a comment indicates you have read and agreed to the remark guidelines and declare:*

PRIVACY: We will not use your email address, submitted for a comment, for any other purpose nor sell, rent, or share your e-mail address with any third parties. Please see our Privacy Policy.

 

CLEAR erases anything you've added in any part of the form. CONTINUE allows you to check your entire post (and edit it if necessary) before submitting.

To ensure that your Reader Remark is not formatted as one long paragraph, precede new paragraphs with either a blank line or an indentation.

Search

Advanced

Article Tools

Reader Remarks

Other Perspectives

Sign-In

Forgot your password?

New to Journal Watch?

E-mail Alerts

Delivered to your inbox.
Tailored to your interests. Free.

Sign Up Now!

Journal Watch Newsletters

Available in 13 specialties with convenient delivery and 10 free online CME exams.

Subscribe Now!

Copyright © 2006. Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.