alexa A Retrospective Study into the Use of Prophylactic Antibiotics Pre-Central Venous Catheter Insertion and the Associated Patient Outcomes | OMICS International
ISSN: 2161-0959
Journal of Nephrology & Therapeutics

Like us on:

Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700+ peer reviewed, Open Access Journals that operates with the help of 50,000+ Editorial Board Members and esteemed reviewers and 1000+ Scientific associations in Medical, Clinical, Pharmaceutical, Engineering, Technology and Management Fields.
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events with over 600+ Conferences, 1200+ Symposiums and 1200+ Workshops on
Medical, Pharma, Engineering, Science, Technology and Business

A Retrospective Study into the Use of Prophylactic Antibiotics Pre-Central Venous Catheter Insertion and the Associated Patient Outcomes

Joel Mccay* and Jonathan Louden

Department of Nephrology, James Cook University Hospital, United Kingdom

*Corresponding Author:
Joel Mccay
Department of Nephrology
James Cook University Hospital
Marton Road, Middlesbrough, North Yorkshire
TS34BW, United Kingdom
Tel: +447894645662
E-mail: [email protected]

Received Date: September 21, 2016; Accepted Date: September 26, 2016; Published Date: September 29, 2016

Citation: Mccay J, Louden J (2016) A Retrospective Study into the Use of Prophylactic Antibiotics Pre-Central Venous Catheter Insertion and the Associated Patient Outcomes. J Nephrol Ther 6:260. doi:10.4172/2161-0959.1000260

Copyright: © 2016 Mccay J, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License; which permits unrestricted use; distribution; and reproduction in any medium; provided the original author and source are credited.

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Nephrology & Therapeutics

Abstract

The risk of bloodstream infection is thought to be as much as 2-3 times more common in patients dialysing from a central venous catheter than those via a fistula. It is not uncommon practice for some nephrology units to use prophylactic antibiotics in the hope of preventing blood stream infections in many patients already with some degree of immunosuppression. As there is no specific guidance we therefore aim to look at the rates of infections in those who received and did not receive antibiotics and their outcomes to try and produce guidelines in relation to their use. 420 lines inserted were analysed over a course of 2 years, the data was analysed and groups divided into those who received antibiotics and those who had not. Those found to be infected were followed up further by analysis of old medical notes and medication prescription charts to see the action taken following a positive line culture and the outcomes associated. In total 97 (23%) patients didn't receive antibiotics and 323 (77%) did receive prophylactic antibiotics. Positive cultures in the antibiotics and non-antibiotics groups after exclusions of the patient septic prior to line insertion were therefore 9 (2.8%) and 5 (5.2%) respectively. No severe complications from line sepsis occurred in either group and all patients made a full recovery from each group. The risk of developing a catheter related infection leading to a significant event requiring ICU admission or death does not increase regardless of the use of prophylactic antibiotics pre-procedure.

Keywords

Access; Infection; Prognosis; CKD

Introduction

Insertion of Central Venous Catheters (CVC) into femoral or internal jugular veins is a well-established technique performed in patients requiring haemodialysis. CVC insertion acts as another option for the new haemodialysis patient or in transition period between Arteriovenus fistula (AVF) formation for existing End-stage Renal Failure patients. The Procedure is done by clinicians with experience in CVC insertion as some of risks associated are Pneumothorax, Arterial puncture, AVF, nerve injury and failure of procedure [1-4]. 200,000 Lines are inserted annually and the use of USS machine is now recommended by NICE to reduce the complication risk [2]. The risk of bloodstream infection is thought to be as much as 2-3 times more common in patients dialyzing from a central venous catheter than those via a fistula [2,3]. It is not uncommon practice for some nephrology units to use prophylactic antibiotics in the hope of preventing blood stream infections in many patients already with some degree of immune-suppression. The use of antibiotics is not recommended as per NICE guidelines although some nephrology units use Teicoplanin or vancomycin in an attempt to reduce gram positive infections [5]. Teicoplanin is a glycopeptide antibiotic associated with good gram positive cover and used in South Tees as prophylaxis. Glycopeptide antibiotics have been shown to reduce incidence of blood stream infections in CVC in certain settings with one such study finding that their use reduced the rates of gram positive cocci infections from 71% to 20% [5]. It also concluded the overall incidence of infection in those receiving teicolanin against those not was 4% and 24% respectively [6].

A tremendous effort has been made in recent years across South Tees NHS Trust to improve infection control and it is for this reason that Teicoplanin is used prophylactically in the Nephrology unit. Many other units in South Tees using CVC (i.e. Anaesthetics or ICU) do not use prophylactic antibiotics and even within the renal unit antibiotic use varies. As there is no specific guidance we therefore aim to look at the rates of infections in those who received and did not receive antibiotics and their outcomes to try and produce guidelines in relation to their use.

Aims

A retrospective study at a large DGH teaching hospital to determine the rates of positive line infections in patients who had either received to not received antibiotics before CVC insertion as well as the outcomes to those patients with positive line cultures in the Nephrology unit.

Methods

420 lines instead were analyzed over a course of 2 years from a documented spreadsheet reserved for audit purposes. It documented the date of insertion, patient number, physician, position, line type, use of monitoring, antibiotic use, success rate and any complications associated. The data was analyzed and groups divided into those who received antibiotics and those who had not. Each patient was analyzed using Sunquest WebIce IT systems to check if there had been any positive blood or line cultures within 1 month since line insertion. Positive cultures were defined as the presence of a pathogen from either the blood obtained from the line site or the line tip itself. Those without any culture results following line insertion were assumed as negative. Those found to be positive were followed up further by analysis of old medical notes and medication prescription charts to see the action taken following a positive line culture and the outcomes associated.

Results

Of the 420 lines inserted over the 2 year period 171 were inserted by consultants 241 by specialist registers and 8 by other core training doctors. Rates of success were 95% (401/420) and arterial puncture occurred in 19 patients (5%). In total 97 (23%) patients didn't receive antibiotics and 323 (77%) did receive prophylactic antibiotics. Before in-depth analysis of each patient the number with a positive line culture in the no antibiotics and antibiotics groups were 8 (8.2%) and 19 (5.9%) respectively. Of those with positive line cultures 5 were septic before insertion in the antibiotics group and 3 were in the no antibiotics group and were therefore excluded. A further 4 patients were lost to follow up as notes were unobtainable and so information regarding their outcomes following positive culture was too. Positive cultures in the antibiotics and non-antibiotics groups after exclusions of the patient septic prior to line insertion were therefore 9 (2.8%) and 5 (5.2%) respectively. Of those, 6 (67%) required no further action following micro-biology or Renal consultant discussion in the antibiotic group and 4 (80%) in the no-antibiotic group. In the noantibiotics group 1 (20%) patient received a course of antibiotics and had their line changed but made a full recovery and was discharge home. In the group who received antibiotics pre-line insertion 3 (33%) patients required a course of antibiotics and all made a complete recovery (Figure 1).

nephrology-therapeutics-patients-exclusion

Figure 1: Flow diagram showing the analysis of patients and the outcomes from each group after exclusion and follow up.

Of the patients who did not receive antibiotics there were only 2 isolated organisms, S. aureus and Klebsiella pneumoniae (Table 1). In the patients receiving antibiotics the most common organisms isolated were S. aureus and Coagulation Negative Staph and a vast array of different organisms as well (Table 2).

Organism isolated  
Staphlococcus aureus 3
Klebsiella pneumoniae 2

Table 1: No Antibiotics group.

Organism isolated  
Coagulation Negative Staph 2
Staph aureus 2
Staph epidermis 1
Staph auricularis 1
Cornyeal bacterium 1
Mixed enterobacteriaceae 1
E.coli 1
Enterobacter cloacae complex 1
Propionibacterium sp 1

Table 2: Group who received antibiotics.

Discussion

From the data analysed above we conclude that outcomes do not worsen regardless of the use of prophylactic teicoplanin. The majorities of people in each group required no action or were commenced on a short course of antibiotics before being discharged home. Current recommendations for line maintenance include review of the site each day as well as changing of dressings every 7 days [7]. Indications for removal of CVC are; a proven organism of catheter related blood stream infection (i.e. S. aureus or Pseudomonas ) from the CVC, 2 positive cultures from the same site 48 hours apart and to consider in neutropaenic patients if line sepsis is suspected. This is not however part of the empirical treatment of neutropaenic sepsis [7].

1 of the patients required line removal following advice from microbiology though there were more cases where some of the organisms isolated were indication for line removal. No patients required escalation to level 2 or 3 care as a result of line related infections and no patients died in either group. Off the organisms isolated the split between gram positive and gram negative was 60:40 in the no antibiotic group and 73:27 in the antibiotic group, suggesting that prophylactic teicoplanin does not provide any added benefit for gram positive cover.

Prophylactic teicoplanin is not used in many other departments within the hospital and a large meta-analysis in 2002 showed that the use of prophylactic antibiotics does not add any benefit in reducing the risk of blood stream infections [8]. Similar studies have also concluded specifically not to use antibiotics prophylactically and that prevention of blood stream infections is more effective by better surveillance as well as removal of the catheter as soon as it is not needed [9]. A study based in ICU has however shown that prophylactic teicoplain is shown to reduce rates of catheter related infections [6]. Of those who received antibiotics versus those who did not 24% had a CRI compared to 4.4% respectively [6]. These results were mostly from temporary CVC as opposed to tunneled lines in renal patients and therefore may not fairly reflect our sample population. More importantly was that the duration of catheterization and catheter site were also independent risk factors for positive line culture. Unfortunately the outcomes of patients with CRI were not performed and are therefore difficult to interpret the significance of this in relation to our results. Other studies have stated that Antibiotic locked lines could have benefits in prevention of line infections and one in particular showed an effective way in reducing blood stream infections are with antibiotic eluting or coated catheters with rates of infection falling from 3.6% to 1.6% in the respective groups [10,11].

From a health economics point of view the cost of a 400mg vile of teicoplanin is £7.32 as per the BNF and in this short time period of 2 years a total of 323 patients received antibiotics unnecessarily [12]. This in total comes to a total cost of £2364.36 over the 2 years. This does not take into consideration the cost and time taken to set up the infusion by nursing staff and the need for IV cannulation as well. Though not a substantial figure, in the forever dwindling budget of the NHS it seems an almighty waste of funds for an unnecessary precaution pre-procedure.

Conclusions

The risk of developing a catheter related infection leading to a significant event requiring ICU admission or death does not increase regardless of the use of prophylactic antibiotics pre-procedure. As a result the use of teicoplanin is wasteful and better surveillance and education of patients on hygiene measures would be a more effective use of healthcare professionals’ time and money. Further studies into the duration of catheterisation in renal patients would be of benefit to determine the risks associate with long term tunnel line usage.

Conflict of Interests

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare and the results presented in this paper have not been published previously in whole or part anywhere else.

References

Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language
Post your comment

Share This Article

Relevant Topics

Recommended Conferences

Article Usage

  • Total views: 8381
  • [From(publication date):
    October-2016 - May 26, 2018]
  • Breakdown by view type
  • HTML page views : 8291
  • PDF downloads : 90

Review summary

  1. gillian noel
    Posted on Nov 14 2016 at 9:07 pm
    Have been suffering from (LUPUS) disease for the past four years and had constant pain, especially in my knees. During the first year,I had faith in God that i would be healed someday.This disease started circulating all over my body and i have been taking treatment from my doctor, few weeks ago i came on search on the internet if i could get any information concerning the prevention of this disease, on my search i saw a testimony of someone who has been healed from (HERPES VIRUS) by this Man Dr Osemudiamen and she also gave the email address of this man and advise we should contact him for any sickness that he would be of help, so i wrote to Dr.Osemudiamen telling him about my (LUPUS) he told me not to worry that i was going to be cured!! hmm i never believed it,well after all the procedures and remedy given to me by this man few weeks later i started experiencing changes all over me as the Dr assured me that i have cured,after some time i went to my doctor to confirmed if i have be finally healed behold it was TRUE, So friends my advise is if you have such sickness or any other at all you can email: [email protected] or call +2347038110398. He told me that he also help people to cure HERPES VIRUS and also help people to bring their ex lover back. contact dr Osemudiamen if you have any problem. email: [email protected]
 

Post your comment

captcha   Reload  Can't read the image? click here to refresh

Peer Reviewed Journals
 
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2018-19
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

Agri & Aquaculture Journals

Dr. Krish

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9040

Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals

Ronald

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9040

Clinical Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Food & Nutrition Journals

Katie Wilson

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science

Andrea Jason

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics & Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Materials Science Journals

Rachle Green

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Nursing & Health Care Journals

Stephanie Skinner

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

Ann Jose

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

 
© 2008- 2018 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version
Leave Your Message 24x7