Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study determines if there are differences in colony forming units (CFU) of bacteria between five different needleless intravenous connectors. CFUs create environments for bloodstream infections with 1 CFU to begin an infection and 15 to develop infection. Intraluminal pathway protection is a most significant way to eliminate 50% bloodstream infections. Five different connectors were evaluated by independent laboratory in vitro regarding ≥15 CFUs, 4 organisms over 4 days. Q-Syte™ had significantly higher mean number days CFUs ≥15 than all other devices, Rymed-5001^® having the least (p < .0001). Q-Syte™ and TKO+Clave^® had significantly more CFUs ≥15 on one or more days. Nonantimicrobial connectors differ on CFU counts in vitro. CFUs are ranked highest to lowest CFUs as follows: Q-Syte™, TKO™Clave^®, MicroCLAVE^®, MaxPlus^® Clear, and Rymed-5001^®. Best nonantimicrobial connector products for intraluminal protection are Rymed-5001^® followed by MaxPlus^® Clear. Using the best connector can significantly prevent infections as part of nursing care.

Keywords

infection connector evaluation comparison

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cesaro, S. , Tridello, G. , Cavaliere, M. , Magagna, L. , Gavin, P. , Cusinato, R. , et al. (2009). Prospective, randomized trial of two different modalities of flushing central venous catheters in pediatric patients with cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 27, 2059-2065.

Chernecky. C. , Macklin, D. , Casella, L. , Jarvis, E. ( 2009). Caring for patients with cancer through nursing knowledge of IV connectors. Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing, 13, 630-633.

Cook, G. , & Meyer, T. ( 2007). Luer activated de ice priming volume as a predictor of biofilm formation in an in vitro assay. Poster presentation at the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, Baltimore, MD, March.

De Cicco, M. , Campisi, C. , & Matovic, M. ( 2003). Central venous catheter bloodstream infections: Pathogenesis factors, new perspectives in prevention and early diagnosis. Journal of Vascular Access, 4(3), 83-91.

Hatler, C. , Hebden, J. , Kaler, W. , & Zack, J. ( 2010). Walk the walk to reduce catheter-related bloodstream infections. American Nurse Today, 5(1), 26-30.

Jarvis, W.R. , Murphy, C. , Hall, K.K. , Fogle, P.J. , Karchmer, T.B. , Harrington, G. , et al. (2009). Health care-associated bloodstream infections associated with negative- or positive-pressure or displacement mechanical valve needleless connectors. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 49, 1821-1827.

Kelly, L.J. ( 2008). The care of vascular access devices in community care . British Journal of Community Nursing, 13, 198, 200, 202.

Maki, D.G. , Weise, C.E. , & Sarafin, H.W. ( 1977). A semiquantitative culture method for identifying intravenous-catheter-related infection. New England Journal of Medicine, 296, 1305-1309.

Migita, D.S. , Postetter, L. , Heath, S. , Hagan, P. , & Del Beccaro, M. (2009). Governing peripherally inserted central venous catheters by combining continuous performance improvement and computerized physician order entry. Pediatrics, 123, 1155-1161.

10.

Shapey, I.M. , Foster, M.A. , Whitehouse, T. , Jumaa, P. , & Bion, J.F. ( 2009). Central venous catheter-related bloodstream infections; improving post-insertion catheter care. Journal of Hospital Infection, 71(2), 117-122.

11.

Tacconelli, E. , Smith, G. , Hieke, K. , Lafuma, A. , & Bastide, P. ( 2009). Epidemiology, medical outcomes and costs of catheter-related bloodstream infections in intensive care units of four European countries: Literature- and registry-based estimates. Journal of Hospital Infection, 72(2), 97-103.

Comparison of Bacterial CFUs in Five Intravenous Connectors

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References