ADVERTISEMENT

Review of Strategies to Reduce Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infection (CLABSI) and Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection (CAUTI) in Adult ICUs

Journal of Hospital Medicine 13(2). 2018 February;105-106. Published online first November 8, 2017 | 10.12788/jhm.2856

Central line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) and catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) are costly and morbid. Despite evidence-based guidelines, Some intensive care units (ICUs) continue to have elevated infection rates. In October 2015, we performed a systematic search of the peer-reviewed literature within the PubMed and Cochrane databases for interventions to reduce CLABSI and/or CAUTI in adult ICUs and synthesized findings using a narrative review process. The interventions were categorized using a conceptual model, with stages applicable to both CAUTI and CLABSI prevention: (stage 0) avoid catheter if possible, (stage 1) ensure aseptic placement, (stage 2) maintain awareness and proper care of catheters in place, and (stage 3) promptly remove unnecessary catheters. We also looked for effective components that the 5 most successful (by reduction in infection rates) studies of each infection shared. Interventions that addressed multiple stages within the conceptual model were common in these successful studies. Assuring compliance with infection prevention efforts via auditing and timely feedback were also common. Hospitalists with patient safety interests may find this review informative for formulating quality improvement interventions to reduce these infections.

© 2018 Society of Hospital Medicine 

DISCUSSION

This extensive literature review yielded a large body of literature demonstrating success in preventing CLABSI and CAUTI in all types of adult ICUs, including in general medical and surgical ICUs and in specialized units with historically higher rates, such as trauma, burn, and neurosurgical. Reported reductions in catheter infections were impressive (>65% for CLABSI or CRBSI and nearly 50% for CAUTI), though several studies had limited power to detect statistical significance. DURs were reported more rarely (particularly for vascular catheters) and often without power to detect statistical significance. Nevertheless, 7 studies reported reduced urinary catheter use (16% mean reduction), which would be anticipated to be clinically significant.

The conceptual model introduced for “Disrupting the Life Cycle of a Catheter” (Figure 2) can be a helpful tool for hospitalists and intensivists to assess and prioritize potential strategies for reducing catheter-associated infections. This study’s results indicate that CLABSI prevention studies often used interventions that optimize best practices during aseptic insertion and maintenance, but few studies emphasized reducing inappropriate central line use. Conversely, CAUTI prevention often targeted avoiding placement and prompting the removal of urinary catheters, with fewer studies evaluating innovative products or technical skill advancement for aseptic insertion or maintenance, though educational interventions to standardize aseptic catheter use were common. Recently, recommendations for reducing the inappropriate use of urinary catheters and intravenous catheters, including scenarios common in ICUs, were developed by using the rigorous RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method152,153; these resources may be helpful to hospitalists designing and implementing interventions to reduce catheter use.

In reviewing the US studies of 5 units demonstrating the greatest success in preventing CLABSI56,62,65,78,83 and CAUTI,28,34,66,134 several shared features emerged. Interventions that addressed multiple steps within the life cycle of a catheter (avoidance, insertion, maintenance, and removal) were common. Previous work has shown that assuring compliance in infection prevention efforts is a key to success,154 and in both CLABSI and CAUTI studies, auditing was included in these successful interventions. Specifically for CLABSI, the checklist, a central quality improvement tool, was frequently associated with success. Unique to CAUTI, engaging a multidisciplinary team including nurse leadership seemed critical to optimize implementation and sustainability efforts. In addition, a focus on stage 3 (removal), including protocols to remove by default, was associated with success in CAUTI studies.

Our review was limited by a frequent lack of reporting of statistical significance or by inadequate power to detect a significant change and great variety. The ability to compare the impact of specific interventions is limited because studies varied greatly with respect to the type of intervention, duration of data collection, and outcomes assessed. We also anticipate that successful interventions are more likely to be published than are trials without success. Strengths include the use of a rigorous search process and the inclusion and review of several types of interventions implemented in ICUs.

In conclusion, despite high catheter use in ICUs, the literature includes many successful interventions for the prevention of vascular and urinary catheter infections in multiple ICU types. This review indicates that targeting multiple steps within the life cycle of a catheter, particularly when combined with interventions to optimize implementation and sustainability, can improve success in reducing CLABSI and CAUTI in the ICU.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all members of the National Project Team for the AHRQ Safety Program for Intensive Care Units: Preventing CLABSI and CAUTI.

Disclosure

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) contract #HHSP233201500016I/HHSP23337002T provided funding for this study. J.M.’s other research is funded by AHRQ (2R01HS018334-04), the NIH-LRP program, the VA National Center for Patient Safety, VA Ann Arbor Patient Safety Center of Inquiry, the Health Research and Educational Trust, American Hospital Association and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the sponsor, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, or the US Department of Veterans Affairs. All authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

Online-Only Materials

Attachment
Size