Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T16:37:39.179Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Infection Rate for Single Lumen v Triple Lumen Subclavian Catheters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Carole Yeung ,
John May  and
Roger Hughes
Carole Yeung
Affiliation:
Infection Control Section of the Clinical Laboratory, Baptist Medical Center, Little Rock, Arkansas
John May*
Affiliation:
Infection Control Section of the Clinical Laboratory, Baptist Medical Center, Little Rock, Arkansas
Roger Hughes
Affiliation:
Infection Control Section of the Clinical Laboratory, Baptist Medical Center, Little Rock, Arkansas
*
Laboratory, Baptist Medical Center, 9601 Interstate 630, Exit 7, Little Rock, AR 72205
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An infection rate was calculated for all subclavian catheters inserted during a 12-month period. The overall, single lumen, and triple lumen infection rates were 1.7% (42/2,431), 0.4% (8/1,936), and 6.9% (34/495), respectively. After excluding single lumen catheters in patients in a surgical cardiovascular unit who appeared to have a decreased risk of infection, the overall, single lumen, and triple lumen rates were 3.7% (42/1,140), 1.2% (8/645), and 6.9% (34/495), respectively. Within this group, 11.8% (281237) of the catheters used for total parenteral nutrition (TPN) were infected, whereas 1.6% (14/903) of the non-TPN catheters were infected. Of patients receiving total parental nutrition through a triple lumen catheter, 14.5% (25/172) became infected, whereas 4.6% (3/65) of the patients receiving total parental nutrition through a single lumen catheter became infected. Single and triple lumen patient groups appeared comparable based on average age, death rate, immunosuppression, underlying disease, and duration of catheterization, but the risk of infection was approximately three times greater for patients receiving total parental nutrition through a triple lumen catheter.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , April 1988 , pp. 154 - 158
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Maki, DG, EW, Weise, HW, Sarafin: A semi-quantitative culture method for identifying intravenous-catheter-related infections. N Engl J Med 1977; 296:1305–1309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. BM, Soule: The APIC Curriculum for Infection Control Practice. Dubuque, Kendall/Hunt, 1983, p 602.Google Scholar
3. Pemberton, LB, Lyman, B, Lander, V, et al: Sepsis from triple- vs single-lumen catheters during total parenteral nutrition in surgical or critic-ally ill patients. Arch Surg 1986; 121:591–594.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. McCarthy, MC, JK, Shives, Robison, RJ, et al: Prospective evaluation of single and triple lumen catheters in total parenteral nutrition.,/ Patenter Enteral Nutr 1987; 11:259–262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. KN, Apelgren: Triple lumen catheters. Technological advance or setback? Am Surg 1987; 53:113–116.Google Scholar
6. Miller, JJ, Bahman, V, Mathru, M: Comparison of the sterility of the long-term central venous catheterization using single lumen, triple lumen, and pulmonary artery catheters. Crit Care Med 1984; 12:634–637.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. RP, Wenzel (ed): Prevention and Control Nosocomial Infections. Baltimore, Williams and Wilkms, 1987, pp 311.312.Google Scholar