Infections Associated with Medtronic Duet External Ventricular Drains - Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island, January 2023-January 2024.

External ventricular drains (EVDs) are medical devices that are inserted into the ventricles of the brain to drain excess fluid, manage intracranial hypertension, monitor intracranial pressure, and administer medications. Unintentional disconnections and breaks or fractures (breaks) of EVDs or associated drainage system components can result in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage and increased risk for EVD-associated infections. After replacement of Integra Life Sciences EVD systems with Medtronic Duet EVD systems at Rhode Island Hospital in mid-September 2023, a threefold increase was observed in the prevalence of positive CSF cultures, from 2.8 per 1,000 days with an EVD in place (EVD days) during January-September 2023 to 11.4 per 1,000 EVD days during October 2023-January 2024 (rate ratio [RR] = 5.7; 95% CI = 1.5-22.0; p = 0.01) and an eightfold increase in the prevalence of infections, from 0.7 to 6.5 per 1,000 EVD days (RR = 9.8; 95% CI = 1.1-87.3; p = 0.04). An investigation by Rhode Island Hospital Infection Control during December 2023-January 2024 identified frequent reports of disconnections and breaks of the Medtronic Duet EVD system. A search of the Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database identified 326 reports nationwide of disconnection and breaks of components of the Duet EVD system, including 175 during 2023. A Medical Product Safety Network report was filed. The Duet EVD product was ultimately recalled in January 2024, citing disconnections of the EVD system and reports of CSF leakage and infection. Given the widespread use of EVD systems by neurosurgery centers and the risk for EVD-associated infections, a strategy for future consideration by hospital infection prevention and control programs might be inclusion of EVD-associated infections in hospital surveillance programs to rapidly identify increases in these events and determine factors related to such infections to prevent additional infections.

Should Blood Cultures Be Drawn Through an Indwelling Catheter?

There is no practical way to definitively diagnose a catheter-related bloodstream infection in situ if blood cultures are only obtained percutaneously unless there is the rare occurrence of purulent drainage from a central venous catheter insertion site. That is why the Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines for diagnosis and management of catheter-related bloodstream infections and Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines for evaluation of fever in critically ill patients both recommend drawing blood cultures from a central venous catheter and percutaneously if the catheter is a suspected source of infection. However, central venous catheter-drawn blood cultures may be more likely to be positive reflecting catheter hub, connector, or intraluminal colonization, and many hospitals in the United States discourage blood culture collection from catheters in an effort to reduce reporting of central-line associated bloodstream infections to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. As such, clinical decisions are made regarding catheter removal or other therapeutic interventions based on incomplete and potentially inaccurate data. We urge clinicians to obtain catheter-drawn blood cultures when the catheter may be the source of suspected infection.

Impact of Catheter-Drawn Blood Cultures on Patient Management: A Multicenter, Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background: Nosocomial bloodstream infections associated with intravascular catheters pose significant financial burden, morbidity, and mortality. There is much debate about whether or not blood cultures should be drawn through central venous catheters, and while guidelines advocate for catheter-drawn cultures when catheter infection is suspected, there is variable practice in this regard. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study assessing episodes of positive catheter-drawn blood cultures with concomitant negative percutaneously-drawn cultures in tertiary care hospitals in the United States and Spain. Results: We identified 143 episodes in 122 patients meeting inclusion criteria. Thirty percent of such episodes revealed growth of potential pathogens such as Staphylococcus aureus. Overall, 21% of follow-up percutaneously-drawn blood cultures obtained within 48 hours revealed growth of the same microbe after an episode of positive catheter-drawn blood cultures with negative concomitant percutaneously-drawn cultures (33% when potential pathogens were isolated; 16% when common skin contaminants were isolated). Patients with cultures growing pathogenic organisms were more likely to receive targeted antimicrobial therapy and have their catheters removed sooner. Conclusions: Many episodes of positive catheter-drawn blood cultures with concomitant negative percutaneously-drawn cultures lead to growth from percutaneously-drawn follow-up blood cultures. Thus, such initial discordant results should not be disregarded. Our findings advocate for a nuanced approach to blood culture interpretation, emphasizing the value of catheter-drawn blood cultures in clinical decision making and management.