Prophylactic Antibiotics and Tunneled Dialysis Catheter Interventions in the Chest
E. Barzel,E. Lacson,L. Ma,L.R. Petrusky,G. Miller,F.W. Maddux
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2013.12.049
IF: 3.682
2014-01-01
Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology
Abstract:PurposeTo determine the effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotics when placing or exchanging tunneled dialysis catheters in the chest.Materials and MethodsFresenius Vascular Care collects data from outpatient interventional centers, as part of a Q.A. and M.O.C. project. Data collection began in 2010 at 26 centers, and continues to date at 35 centers. Physicians at each center administer antibiotics based on their interpretation of best practice, with substantial variability in the administration of prophylactic antibiotics. At the time of each intervention collected data included the presence of preexisting infection, the use of antibiotic, antibiotic type, and route of administration. A follow-up phone call was made to each patient's dialysis center, one week after intervention to determine if the patient developed an infection. Data recorded in the patient's chart, was also submitted to a HIPPA compliant central database. WIRB provided a letter of exemption for data review. A statistical analysis was performed of data from 1/1/2010 through 6/30/2013. Analysis includes only tunneled chest wall catheters in patients without pre-existing infection. Data from 2010 and 2011 for catheter exchange was presented at last year's SIR meeting.ResultsNew catheter placement:3065 total patients. Data incomplete 934 patients. No antibiotics 819 patients with 5 infections. Antibiotic given 1312 patients with 3 infections. Odds ratio 2.68 p-value 0.27Catheter Exchange: 8504 total patients. Data incomplete 2488 patients. No antibiotics 2235 patients with 24 infections. Oral antibiotic 1522 patients with 7 infections. Odds ratio 2.35 p-value 0.041.IV antibiotic 2259 patients with 5 infections. Odds ratio 4.89 p-value 0.0004.There was a substantial decrease in the rate of infection in the non-antibiotic group from 1 in 42 during 2010 to 1 in 154 for the remaining 2.5 years; thus, 2010 data drove significance.ConclusionThere was no definite benefit demonstrated for the use of prophylactic antibiotics with new catheter placement. Oral and IV antibiotics significantly reduced the rate of infection following catheter exchange, but the effect is substantially stronger with IV antibiotics. PurposeTo determine the effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotics when placing or exchanging tunneled dialysis catheters in the chest. To determine the effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotics when placing or exchanging tunneled dialysis catheters in the chest. Materials and MethodsFresenius Vascular Care collects data from outpatient interventional centers, as part of a Q.A. and M.O.C. project. Data collection began in 2010 at 26 centers, and continues to date at 35 centers. Physicians at each center administer antibiotics based on their interpretation of best practice, with substantial variability in the administration of prophylactic antibiotics. At the time of each intervention collected data included the presence of preexisting infection, the use of antibiotic, antibiotic type, and route of administration. A follow-up phone call was made to each patient's dialysis center, one week after intervention to determine if the patient developed an infection. Data recorded in the patient's chart, was also submitted to a HIPPA compliant central database. WIRB provided a letter of exemption for data review. A statistical analysis was performed of data from 1/1/2010 through 6/30/2013. Analysis includes only tunneled chest wall catheters in patients without pre-existing infection. Data from 2010 and 2011 for catheter exchange was presented at last year's SIR meeting. Fresenius Vascular Care collects data from outpatient interventional centers, as part of a Q.A. and M.O.C. project. Data collection began in 2010 at 26 centers, and continues to date at 35 centers. Physicians at each center administer antibiotics based on their interpretation of best practice, with substantial variability in the administration of prophylactic antibiotics. At the time of each intervention collected data included the presence of preexisting infection, the use of antibiotic, antibiotic type, and route of administration. A follow-up phone call was made to each patient's dialysis center, one week after intervention to determine if the patient developed an infection. Data recorded in the patient's chart, was also submitted to a HIPPA compliant central database. WIRB provided a letter of exemption for data review. A statistical analysis was performed of data from 1/1/2010 through 6/30/2013. Analysis includes only tunneled chest wall catheters in patients without pre-existing infection. Data from 2010 and 2011 for catheter exchange was presented at last year's SIR meeting. ResultsNew catheter placement:3065 total patients. Data incomplete 934 patients. No antibiotics 819 patients with 5 infections. Antibiotic given 1312 patients with 3 infections. Odds ratio 2.68 p-value 0.27Catheter Exchange: 8504 total patients. Data incomplete 2488 patients. No antibiotics 2235 patients with 24 infections. Oral antibiotic 1522 patients with 7 infections. Odds ratio 2.35 p-value 0.041.IV antibiotic 2259 patients with 5 infections. Odds ratio 4.89 p-value 0.0004.There was a substantial decrease in the rate of infection in the non-antibiotic group from 1 in 42 during 2010 to 1 in 154 for the remaining 2.5 years; thus, 2010 data drove significance. New catheter placement: 3065 total patients. Data incomplete 934 patients. No antibiotics 819 patients with 5 infections. Antibiotic given 1312 patients with 3 infections. Odds ratio 2.68 p-value 0.27 Catheter Exchange: 8504 total patients. Data incomplete 2488 patients. No antibiotics 2235 patients with 24 infections. Oral antibiotic 1522 patients with 7 infections. Odds ratio 2.35 p-value 0.041. IV antibiotic 2259 patients with 5 infections. Odds ratio 4.89 p-value 0.0004. There was a substantial decrease in the rate of infection in the non-antibiotic group from 1 in 42 during 2010 to 1 in 154 for the remaining 2.5 years; thus, 2010 data drove significance. ConclusionThere was no definite benefit demonstrated for the use of prophylactic antibiotics with new catheter placement. Oral and IV antibiotics significantly reduced the rate of infection following catheter exchange, but the effect is substantially stronger with IV antibiotics. There was no definite benefit demonstrated for the use of prophylactic antibiotics with new catheter placement. Oral and IV antibiotics significantly reduced the rate of infection following catheter exchange, but the effect is substantially stronger with IV antibiotics.