Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services
This publication was published more than 5 years ago. The state of knowledge may have changed.
Risk of adverse events when using central venous catheters in home health care
Central venous catheters are inserted in hospitals to ease blood sampling and administration of infusion treatments. After the hospital stay, a patient may continue to use the central venous catheter in a home environment. The question addressed by the SBU Enquiry Service is about the risk of adverse events when central venous catheters are used and managed in home healthcare settings. The answer includes all kinds of central venous catheters, but if specific knowledge exists it should specify findings about a new type of central venous catheter, brand named: Altius (Kimal).
Reading time approx. 3 minutes
Published:
Publication type:
Share on Facebook
Share on LinkedIn
Share on X
Share via Email
Question
Are there scientific studies investigating the risk of adverse events when using central catheters in home health care?
Tables with identified studies
| Abbreviations: HHC = Home health care 1 Author’s conclusion is about the total study population and not only about those with home care infusion treatment. |
||
| Included studies | Population | Outcome |
| Shang et al [1] | ||
| 25 studies of which 3 investigated infection rates in homebased infusion patients | Home infusion patients, n=51 356 | Number of overall infections/1 000 catheter days |
| Authors' conclusion1: “Establishing a surveillance system for HHC infections, identifying patients at high risk for infections, tailoring HHC and patient education based on patient living conditions, and facilitating communication between different health care facilities will enhance infection control in HHC settings.” |
||
| Abbrivations: BSI = Blood Stream Infection; PICC = Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter 2 The proportion of events during a time period is based on the total number of events for each outcome. 3 Author’s conclusion is about the total study population and not only about those with home care infusion treatment. |
||
| Included studies | Intervention/Control | Outcome |
| Moureau et al (2002) [2] | ||
| Total 50 470 home infusion patients from 37 US states. | Tunneled central catheter (n=8 345, mean age: 42 years) | Infections (systemic, local, total) per 1 000 catheter days Catheter dysfunction (thrombotic, non-thrombotic, total) per 1 000 catheter days Proportion2 of catheter infections (systemic and local) that have occurred at different time periods after implantation (0–7 days, 8–14 days, 15–30 days, >30 days) |
| Non-tunneled central catheter (n=2 982, mean age: 50 years) | Infections (systemic, local, total) per 1 000 catheter days Catheter dysfunction (thrombotic, non-thrombotic, total) per 1 000 catheter days Proportion2 of catheter infections (systemic and local) that have occurred at different time periods after implantation (0–7 days, 8–14 days, 15–30 days, >30 day) |
|
| Authors' conclusion: Overall conclusion3 “Catheter dysfunction is the most frequent complication of all CVC. In this population, almost twice that of infections. Outpatient home infusion catheter dysfunction results in delays to therapy, unscheduled hospitalizations, and need for device replacement.” From discussion, about tunnelled versus non-tunneled catheters: “Specific device infection rates reflected a few surprises. For BSI, PICCs and midline catheters had lower rates of occurrence than chest ports, and nontunneled catheters had a lower incidence than tunneled catheters. These results support the increasing use of PICCs for short and longer-term therapies. Tunneled catheters have long been thought to reduce BSI infections related to the subcutaneous tunneling process and the polyester cuff embedded in the skin. Few studies have indicated increased rates of infection with tunneled compared to nontunneled catheters.” From discussion: “When infections occur in home-infusion CVCs, they typically appear after the first 30 days after catheter insertion and underscore the need for vigilance in maintaining aseptic technique in routine management of the home care patient.” |
||
References
- Shang J, Chenjuan M, Poghosyan L, Dowding D, Stone P. The prevalence of infections and patient risk factors in home health care: A systematic review. American Journal of Infection Control 2014;42:479-484.
- Moureau N, Poole S, Murdock MA, Gray SM, Semba CP. Central venous catheters in home infusion care: outcomes analysis in 50,470 patients. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2002;13:1009-16.
Literature search
Project group
Per Lytsy, Laura Lintamo, Sara Fundell and Miriam Entesarian Matsson at SBU.
Page published
To top