RESUMO
Background: Taurolidine containing lock solutions (TL) are a promising method for the prevention of central line associated bloodstream infections. Per accident, the TL may not always be aspirated from the central venous catheter (CVC) before blood cultures are obtained. The TL could, unintentionally, end up in a blood culture vial, possibly altering the results. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of the TLs on the detection of microbial growth in blood culture vials. Methods: Different lock solutions (taurolidine-citrate-heparin (TCHL), taurolidine, heparin, citrate or NaCl) were added to BD BACTECTM blood culture vials (Plus Aerobic/F, Lytic/10 Anaerobic/F or Peds Plus/F) before spiking with Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 29213 or a clinical strain) or Escherichia coli (ATCC 25922 or a clinical strain) in the presence and absence of blood. Subsequently, blood culture vials were incubated in the BD BACTEC FX instrument with Time-to-positivity (TTP) as primary outcome. In addition, the effect of the TCHL on a variety of other micro-organisms was tested. Discussion: In the presence of taurolidine, the TTP was considerably delayed or vials even remained negative as compared to vials containing heparin, citrate or NaCl. This effect was dose-dependent. The delayed TTP was much less pronounced in the presence of blood, but still notable. Conclusion: This study stresses the clinical importance of discarding TLs from the CVC before obtaining a blood culture.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Prevention of catheter-related infection is of prime importance,. However, because of the risks caused by the leakage of circulating antibiotics and development of resistance to antibiotics, they are replaced by lock solutions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and cost- effectiveness of taurolidine-citrate as a hemodialysis catheter lock solution compared to other common alternatives in Iran. METHODS: To evaluate the efficacy of taurolidine-citrate, a systematic review was conducted by searching electronic databases. The outcomes of interest for cost-effectiveness analysis were as follows: "Catheter-related bacteremia episodes"; "catheter-related bacteremia-free survival"; "catheter thrombosis rate" for efficacy evaluation and "reduction of catheter-related infection". For evidence synthesis, a meta-analysis was conducted on the extracted efficacy data. To evaluate the cost of treatments, direct medical costs were included, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated for each comparison. The payers' (patients and insurance companies) perspectives were used for cost analysis. RESULTS: After carrying out the systematic process, three articles were included in the analysis. Considering 95% confidence interval, the relative difference was -0.16 (-0.25 to -0.07) for catheterrelated bacteremia episode, indicating that the rate of catheter-related infections in hemodialysis patients who used taurolidine-citrate was 16% less than in those hemodialysis patients who received heparin. Considering 95% confidence interval, the relative difference was 0.13 (-0.06 0.32) for catheter thrombosis, showing that the rate of catheter-related thrombosis in hemodialysis patients who used taurolidine-citrate was 13% more than in hemodialysis patients who received heparin. The results of this analysis indicated that taurolidine-citrate, compared to heparin, was more effective in preventing catheter-related infection; therefore, it could be considered as a superior strategy. Nevertheless, compared to heparin-gentamicin combination, taurolidine-citrate is an inferior strategy because of its higher cost and lower infection prevention. CONCLUSION: Compared to heparin, taurolidine-citrate is a superior option, but it is an inferior strategy compared to heparin-gentamicin combination. The clinical evidences on taurolidine-citrate, heparin and gentamicin/heparin are not sufficient for making confident decisions.