Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Nosocomial infections in the intensive care unit associated with invasive medical devices

  • Published:
Current Infectious Disease Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Modern day health care has become synonymous with cutting-edge, high-tech medicine, which includes a large and growing number of invasive medical devices, especially in intensive care units. The most widely used of these devices—intravascular catheters of many types and urinary catheters—account for more than one half of all institutionally acquired infections. Growing knowledge of the pathogenesis and epidemiology of these infections has given birth to novel and more effective control measures, the most promising of which are technologically based.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Anonymous: National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) system report, data summary from January 1992–April 2000, issued June 2000. Am J Infect Control 2000, 28:429–448. This report addresses current rates of nosocomial infections in US intensive care units and highlights the increasing resistance to antimicrobial agents of the common nosocomial pathogens.

  2. Maki DG: Risk factors for nosocomial infection in intensive care. Devices versus nature and goals for the next decade. Arch Intern Med 1989, 149:30–35.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Donlan RM: Biofilms and device-associated infections. Emerg Infect Dis 2001, 7:277–281. An informative review of the pathogenesis and development of biofilm on invasive devices and implants.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. An YH, Friedman RJ: Concise review of mechanisms of bacterial adhesion to biomaterial surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res 1998, 43:338–348.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Mack D: Molecular mechanisms of Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilm formation. J Hosp Infect 1999, 43:S113-S125.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. McGavin MH, Krajewska-Pietrasik D, Ryden C, Hook M: Identification of a Staphylococcus aureus extracellular matrixbinding protein with broad specificity. Infect Immun 1993, 61:2479–2485.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Anwar H, Strap JL, Chen K, Costerton JW: Dynamic interactions of biofilms of mucoid Pseudomonas aeruginosa with tobramycin and piperacillin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992, 36:1208–1214.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Maki DG, Tambyah PA: Engineering out the risk for infection with urinary catheters. Emerg Infect Dis 2000, 7:342–347. A succinct review of the pathogenesis of CAUTIs and strategies for prevention, focusing on novel technology.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Warren JW: Catheter-associated urinary tract infection. Infect Dis Clin North Am 1997, 11:609–622. A scholarly and very comprehensive review of all aspects of CAUTI.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Tambyah PA, Maki DG: Catheter-associated urinary tract infection is rarely symptomatic: a prospective study of 1497 catheterized patients. Arch Intern Med 2000, 160:678–682. A large prospective study in which each catheterized patient was seen daily, demonstrating the asymptomatic nature of the vast majority of CAUTIs.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Tambyah PA, Halvorson KT, Maki DG: A prospective study of the pathogenesis of catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Mayo Clin Proc 1999, 72:131–136. A large prospective study that suggests that approximately half of CAUTIs derive from microorganisms that gain access to the bladder extraluminally. The remainder gain access to the urinary tract intraluminally, from failure of closed drainage, or contamination of urine in the collection bag.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Maki DG, Knasinski V, Halvorson KT, et al.: A prospective, randomized, investigator-blinded trial of a novel nitrofurazoneimpregnated urinary catheter [abstract M49]. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1997, 18:50.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Darouiche RO, Smith A, Hanna HJ, et al.: Efficacy of antimicrobial-impregnated bladder catheters in reducing catheterassociated bacteriuria: a prospective, randomized multicenter clinical trial. Urology 1999, 54:976–981.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Maki DG, Knasinski V, Halvorson K, Tambyah PA: A novel silver hydrogel-impregnated indwelling urinary catheter reduces CAUTIs: a prospective double blind trial [abstract]. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1998, 19:682.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Karchmer TB, Giannetta ET, Muto CA, et al.: A randomized crossover study of silver-coated urinary catheters in hospitalized patients. Arch Intern Med 2000, 160:3294–3298.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Saint S, Veenstra DL, Sullivan SD, et al.: The potential clinical and economic benefits of silver alloy urinary catheters in preventing urinary tract infection. Arch Intern Med 2000, 160:2670–2675.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Stark RP, Maki DG: Bacteriuria in the catheterized patient. N Engl J Med 1984, 311:560–564.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Platt R, Polk BF, Murdock B, Rosner B: Risk factors for nosocomial urinary tract infection. Am J Epidemiol 1986, 124:977–985.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Johnson JR, Roberts RP, Olsen RJ, et al.: Prevention of catheterassociated urinary tract infection with a silver oxide-coated urinary catheter: Clinical and microbiologic correlates. J Infect Dis 1990, 162:1145–1150.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Riley DK, Classen DC, Stevens LE, Burke JP: A large randomized clinical trial of a silver-impregnated urinary catheter: lack of efficacy and staphylococcal superinfection. Am J Med 1995, 98:349–356.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Maki DG, Knasinski V, Tambyah PA: Risk factors for catheterassociated urinary tract infection: a prospective study showing the minimal effects of catheter care violations on the risk of CAUTI [abstract]. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000, 21:165.

    Google Scholar 

  22. van der Wall E, Verkooyen RP, Mintjes-de Groot J, et al.: Prophylactic ciprofloxacin for catheter-associated urinary tract infection. Lancet 1992, 339:946–951.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Warren JW, Platt R, Thomas RJ, et al.: Antibiotic irrigation and catheter-associated urinary tract infection. N Engl J Med 1978, 299:570–573.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Huth TS, Burke JP, Larsen RA, et al.: Clinical trial of junction seals for the prevention of urinary catheter-associated bacteriuria. Arch Intern Med 1992, 152:807–812.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Maki D, Mermel L: Infections due to infusion therapy. In Hospital Infections, edn 4. Edited by Bennett JV, Brachman PS. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1998:689–724. A comprehensive and current review of all aspects of IVDrelated infection.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Pittet D, Tarara D, Wenzel R: Nosocomial bloodstream infection in critically ill patients. Excess length of stay, extra costs, and attributable mortality. JAMA 1994, 271:1598–601.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Kluger D, Maki D: The relative risk of intravascular devicerelated bloodstream infections with different types of intravascular devices in adults. A meta-analysis of 206 published studies. [abstract]. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000, 21:95.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Safdar N, Maki DG: Risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection with peripherally inserted central venous catheters [abstract]. Programs and Proceedings of the 41st Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Chicago. December 16–19, 2001.

  29. Sitges-Serra A, Hernandez R, Maestro S, et al.: Prevention of catheter sepsis: the hub. Nutrition 1997, 13(4 Suppl):30S-35S.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Maki DG, Stolz SM, Wheeler S, Mermel LA: Prevention of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection by use of an antiseptic-impregnated catheter. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1997, 127:257–266. A randomized trial of a novel chlorhexidine-silver sulfadiazine catheter compared with conventional noncuffed triple-lumen catheters. The study demonstrated the efficacy of the novel catheter in reducing catheter-related BSIs without adverse effects.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Cheesbrough JS, Finch RG, Burden RP: A prospective study of the mechanisms of infection associated with hemodialysis catheters. J Infect Dis 1986, 154:579–589.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Weightman NC, Simpson EM, Speller DC, et al.: Bacteraemia related to indwelling central venous catheters: prevention, diagnosis and treatment. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1988, 7:125–129.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Maki DG, Narans LL, Banton J: A prospective study of the pathogenesis of PICC-related BSI (Abstract). Paper presented at Proceedings and Abstracts of the 38th Interscience Conference of Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. San Diego. September 24–27, 1998.

  34. Moro LM, Vigano EF, Lepri AC, et al.: Risk factors for central venous catheter-related infections in surgical and intensive care units. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994, 15:253–264.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Kluger DM, Maki DG: A review of risk factors for catheterrelated bloodstream infection caused by percutaneouslyinserted, non-cuffed central venous catheters. Programs and Abstracts of the Fourth Decennial International Conference on Nosocomial and Healthcare-Associated Infections. Atlanta. March 5–8, 2000.

  36. CDC: Monitoring hospital-acquired infections to promote patient safety—United States, 1990–1999. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2000, 49:149–153.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Mermel LA: Prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Ann Intern Med 2000, 132:391–402. A critical analysis of currently available preventive strategies for prevention of IVDR BSI.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Sherertz RJ, Ely EW, Westbrook DM, et al.: Education of physicians-in-training can decrease the risk for vascular catheter infection. Ann Intern Med 2000, 132:641–648. A study that shows the remarkable effectiveness of a basic but too often ignored strategy for prevention of IVDR BSI: formal training.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Eggimann P, Harbarth S, Constantin MN, et al.: Impact of a prevention strategy targeted at vascular-access care on incidence of infections acquired in intensive care. Lancet 2000, 355:1864–1868. Another study further demonstrating the value of focused education and monitoring for prevention of IVDR BSI.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Soifer NE, Borzak S, Edlin BR, Weinstein RA: Prevention of peripheral venous catheter complications with an intravenous therapy team: a randomized uncontrolled study. Arch Intern Med 1998, 158:473–477. A prospective study showing that peripheral catheters inserted and cared for by a nurse intravascular therapy team had a 10-fold lower incidence of infectious complications than catheters inserted by house officers and cared for by patients’ nurses.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Raad II, Hohn DC, Gilbreath J, et al.: Prevention of central venous catheter-related infections by using maximal sterile barrier precautions during insertion. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994, 15:231–238.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Mermel LA: New technologies to prevent intravascular catheter-related bloodstream infections. Emerg Infect Dis 2001, 7:197–199. This article describes new and upcoming technologic advances to prevent IVDR BSI.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Maki DG, Ringer M, Alvarado CJ: Prospective randomized trial of povidone-iodine, alcohol, and chlorhexidine for prevention of infection associated with central venous and arterial catheters. Lancet 1991, 338:339–343.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Mimoz O, Pieroni L, Lawrence C, et al.: Prospective, randomized trial of two antiseptic solutions for prevention of central venous or arterial catheter colonization and infection in intensive care unit patients. Crit Care Med 1996, 24:1818–1823.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Humar A, Ostromecki A, Direnfeld J, et al.: Prospective randomized trial of 10% povidone-iodine versus 0.5% tincture of chlorhexidine as cutaneous antisepsis for prevention of central venous catheter infection. Clin Infect Dis 2000, 31:1001–1007.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Maki DG, Knasinski V, Narans LL, Gordon BJ: A randomized trial of a novel 1% chlorhexidine-75% alcohol tincture versus 10% povidone-iodine for cutaneous disinfection with vascular catheters [abstract]. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000, 21:96.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Garland JS, Buck RK, Maloney P, et al.: Comparison of 10% povidone-iodine and 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate for the prevention of peripheral intravenous catheter colonization in neonates: a prospective trial. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1995, 14:510–516.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Maki DG, Narans LL, Knasinski V, Kluger DM: The efficacy of a chlorhexidine-impregnated sponge (biopatch) for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infection - a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000, 21:96. This prospective, randomized two-center trial shows the impact that more effective cutaneous antisepsis can have on the risk of catheterrelated infections. The simple, inexpensive chlorhexidine-impregnated sponge dressing is an attractive preventive measure.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Dryden MS, Samson A, Ludlam HA, et al.: Infective complication associated with the use of the "Quinton Permcath" for long-term central venous access in haemodialysis. J Hosp Infection 1991, 19:257–262.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Jaeger K, Osthaus A, Heine J, et al.: Efficacy of a benzalkonium chloride-impregnated central venous catheter to prevent catheter-associated infection in cancer patients. Chemotherapy 2001, 47:50–55.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Veenstra DL, Saint S, Saha S, et al.: Efficacy of antisepticimpregnated central venous catheters in preventing catheterrelated bloodstream infection: a meta-analysis. JAMA 1999, 281:261–267. The silver sulfadiazine-chlorhexidine-impregnated CVC was associated with 40% reduction in CVC-related BSI in this meta-analysis.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Veenstra DL, Saint S, Sullivan SD: Cost-effectiveness of antiseptic-impregnated central venous catheters for the prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infection. JAMA 1999, 282:554–560. This analysis indicates that new technologic advances for prevention of IVDR BSI are cost effective when applied to a high-risk population.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Raad I, Darouiche R, Dupuis J, et al.: Central venous catheters coated with minocycline and rifampin for the prevention of catheter-related colonization and bloodstream infections. A randomized, double-blind trial. The Texas Medical Center Catheter Study Group. Ann Intern Med 1997, 127:267–274.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Darouiche RO, Raad II, Heard SO, et al.: A comparison of two antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters. Catheter Study Group. N Engl J Med 1999, 340:1–8. The minocycline-rifampin-coated CVC was clearly superior to the silver sulfadiazine-chlorhexidine-impregnated CVC in this multicenter, randomized trial.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Maki DG, Halvorson KT: Prospective study of the surface antimicrobial activity of commercially available medicated central venous catheters (CVCs). Programs and Abstracts from the 38th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. San Diego. September 24–27, 1998.

  56. Raad II, Darouiche RO, Hachem R, et al.: Antimicrobial durability and rare ultrastructural colonization of indwelling central catheters coated with minocycline and rifampin. Crit Care Med 1998, 26:219–224.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Segura M, Alvarez-Lerma F, Tellado JM, et al.: A clinical trial on the prevention of catheter-related sepsis using a new hub model. Ann Surg 1996, 223:363–369.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Luna J, Masdeu G, Perez M, et al.: Clinical trial evaluating a new hub device designed to prevent catheter-related sepsis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2000, 19:655–662.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Spafford PS, Sinkin RA, Cox C, et al.: Prevention of central venous catheter-related coagulase-negative staphylococcal sepsis in neonates. J Pediatr 1994, 125:259–263.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Krzywda EA, Andris DA, Edmiston CE Jr, Quebbeman EJ: Treatment of Hickman catheter sepsis using antibiotic lock technique. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1995, 16:596–598.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Benoit JL, Carandang G, Sitrin M, Arnow PM: Intraluminal antibiotic treatment of central venous catheter infections in patients receiving parenteral nutrition at home. Clin Infect Dis 1995, 21:1286–1288.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Grohskopf LA, Maki DG, Sohn AH, et al.: Reality check: Should we use vancomycin for the prophylaxis of intravascular catheter-associated infections? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2001, 22:176–179. This article addresses the debate regarding the risks versus benefit of using vancomycin for prophylaxis against IVDR BSI. The consensus was that used in an antibiotic lock solution, selective use of vancomycin could be justified.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Henrickson KJ, Axtell RA, Hoover SM, et al.: Prevention of central venous catheter-related infections and thrombotic events in immunocompromised children by the use of vancomycin/ ciprofloxacin/heparin flush solution: a randomized, multicenter, double-blind trial. J Clin Oncol 2000, 18:1269–1278.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. O’Grady NP, Alexander M, Bellinger EP, et al.: HICPAC Guideline for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infection. Federal Register 2001, In press. The new CDC-HICPAC-SHEA-SCCM evidence-based guideline for prevention of IVDR infection.

  65. Richards MJ, Edwards JR, Culver DH, Gaynes RP: Nosocomial infections in combined medical-surgical intensive care units in the United States. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000, 21:510–515.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. H4/572 University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, 53792, Madison, WI, USA

    Dennis G. Maki MD

Authors
  1. Nasia Safdar MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christopher J. Crnich MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dennis G. Maki MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Safdar, N., Crnich, C.J. & Maki, D.G. Nosocomial infections in the intensive care unit associated with invasive medical devices. Curr Infect Dis Rep 3, 487–495 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11908-001-0085-5

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11908-001-0085-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation