Effect of Delaying Replacement of Parenteral Nutrition Intravenous Administration Sets: Preclinical Experiments and a Dynamic Laboratory Model of Microbial Colonization.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations prescribe daily intravenous administration set (IVAS) replacement for parenteral nutrition (PN) comprising intravenous fat emulsions (IVFE) due to risk of micro-organism growth and resultant central-line associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs), but system disconnection for this practice may allow contamination and CLABSIs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Laboratory experiments and model development were used to simulate PN administration after contamination from healthcare workers' hands. This study observed the growth of micro-organisms known to cause CLABSIs in a variety of PN and other IV fluids and developed a model to investigate the effect of delaying IVAS replacement on microbial growth for up to 7 days. RESULTS: Micro-organisms grew at different rates and were affected by solution type. In static experiments, growth was supported in IVFE and all-in-one PN, but suppressed in 50% glucose. Growth patterns were consistent over time for Staphylococcus epidermidis, Staphylococcus aureus, and Candida albicans in IVFE, all-in-one PN, and 0.9% sodium chloride in both static and dynamic experiments. C. albicans grew exponentially to clinically significant numbers in all-in-one PN and IVFE IVAS after 30 hours, but negligible growth of S. epidermidis or S. aureus occurred for 7 days. CONCLUSION: All-in-one PN and IVFE support the C. albicans growth after minimal initial contamination, with micro-organisms migrating from the fluid bag to the central venous access device. Improved aseptic nontouch technique during clinical practice is vital to prevent contamination. Daily IVAS replacement of for all-in-one PN and IVFE should continue until the safety of prolonging IVAS replacement is confirmed by randomized trials.

Does a Dedicated Lumen for Parenteral Nutrition Administration Reduce the Risk of Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections? A Systematic Literature Review.

Guidelines recommend using single-lumen central vascular access devices (CVADs) for the administration of parenteral nutrition (PN) or lipid-based solutions, or a dedicated lumen on a multilumen CVAD. Publications reviewed by the authors reported comparative rates of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CR-BSI) in patients with CVADs who received PN through a dedicated lumen compared with those who had PN administered through multilumen CVADs. Two studies included 650 patients with 1349 CVADs. CR-BSIs were equally distributed between the 2 groups. Both studies were poorly reported and had significant risk of bias. These results should be interpreted with caution.

Does Parenteral Nutrition Increase the Risk of Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infection? A Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Central venous access devices (CVADs) are used for parenteral nutrition (PN) delivery. We systematically reviewed research-based publications that reported comparative rates of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) in patients with CVADs who received PN vs those who did not receive PN therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The literature search included the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PubMed up to July 14, 2015, to identity studies that compared patients with a CVAD who did and did not have PN therapy. RESULTS: Eleven observational studies were identified, comprising 2854 participants with 6287 CVADs. Six studies produced significant results in favor of non-PN, 4 studies showed no evidence of a difference between PN and non-PN, and 1 study produced significant results in favor of PN when analyzed per patient with multiple CVADs. Incidence ranged from 0 to 6.6 CRBSIs per 1000 CVAD days in the PN patients and 0.39 to 3.6 CRBSIs per 1000 CVAD days in the non-PN patients. The Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool for nonrandomized studies of interventions was used. Eight studies were rated as moderate risk of bias, 2 as serious, and 1 as critical. CONCLUSION: The data presented in this systematic review are not sufficient to establish whether patients receiving PN are more at risk of developing CRBSI than those who do not. Future PN studies needs to adjust for baseline imbalances and improve quality and reporting.