Web site designed and maintained by Chris Cairns  © SICS EBM Group 2004                                  

Up

 

Should disinfectable, needle free connectors be used to reduce the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections?

 

The Bottom Line: When compared with standard three way taps, disinfectable, needle-free connectors are associated with a significantly lower rate of catheter-related bloodstream infections.

 

Level of evidence:   1+ (RCT with a low risk of Bias)

 

Citation: Juan C.Yebenes, et al. Prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infection in critically ill patients using a disinfectable, needle-free connector: A randomized controlled trial. AJIC 2004 32(5): 291-295

 

Lead author's name & email: Dr Juan C. Yebenes, jcyebenes@csm.scs.es

 

Three-part Clinical Question:

Patients: ICU patients

Intervention: Use of disinfectable, needle-free connectors rather than three-way taps

Outcome: the rates of catheter-related blood stream infections  

 

Search Terms: Catheter-related bloodstream infections. Disinfectable, needle-free connector

The Study: Randomized, semi-blinded controlled trial

 

Study Patients: All critically ill patients admitted to a 12-bedded intensive care unit who needed a CVC were included. Exclusions were CVCs inserted outside the ICU, those removed before 72 hours of insertion or guide wire insertion.


Control group (n=139; all analysed): CVCs were equipped with standard three way tap connectors.


Experimental group (n=139; all analysed): disinfectable, needle-free connectors attached to each lumen on insertion.

 

The Evidence:

Outcome

Time to Outcome

CER

EER

RRR

ARR

NNT

Catheter related bloodstream infection

Catheter removal

0.050

0.007

86%

0.043

23

95% Confidence Intervals:

8 to 100%

0.004-0.082

12 to 238

 

EBM questions:

 

1) Do the methods allow accurate testing of the hypothesis? Yes. Although it is not possible to completely blind this study, it is a well designed randomised study with clear inclusion criteria, a good number of patients and 100% follow up.

 

2) Do the statistical tests correctly test the results to allow differentiation of statistically significant results? Yes

 

3) Are conclusions valid in light of the results? Yes

 

4) Did results get omitted, and why? No

 

5) Did they suggest areas of further research? No

 

6) Did they make any recommendations based on the results and were they appropriate? Yes, they recommended adding the addition of disinfectable, needle free connectors to the 1996 CDC recommendations for the insertion of CVC

 

7) Is the study relevant to my clinical practice? Yes

 

8) What level of evidence does this study represent? 1+

 

9) What grade of recommendation can I make on this result alone?  B

 

10) What grade of recommendation can I make when this study is considered along with other available evidence? B

 

11) Should I change my practice because of these results? Yes

 

12) Should I audit my current practice because of these results? Yes

 

Appraised by: Dr Phoebe Brodie, SHO, ICU, Edinburgh Royal Infirmary

Email: phoebe.brodie@nhs.net

 

Citation: EBM Critical Appraisals. Scottish Intensive Care Society EBM Group. Brodie P. 2005: Juan C.Yebenes, et al. Prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infection in critically ill patients using a disinfectable, needle-free connector: A randomized controlled trial. AJIC 2004 32(5): 291-295.

 

Kill or Update By: MAY 2010

Edited by DS & CC

Printer friendly version

 

©SICS EBMG 2005