Removal and insertion of central venous catheters in cancer patients is associated with high symptom burden.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the symptom burden associated with CVC removal and insertion in cancer patients. METHODS: We collected patient-reported symptom-burden outcomes for 60 consecutive cancer patients: 30 undergoing CVC removal and 30 undergoing CVC insertion. Cancer patients self-administered the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory to rate the severity of 21 different symptoms immediately after the procedure Results: Symptoms were present in up to 57% to 67% of patients undergoing CVC insertion and removal respectively. Nineteen patients (32%) were moderately symptomatic with a symptom burden of four or more: ten insertion and nine removal patients. Symptoms with a score of 4 or more clustered around physical symptoms (pain, pressure or burning) or more generalized symptoms (fatigue, sleep, distress, dry mouth, and drowsiness). Nine (15%) patients rated at least one symptom as eight or more, five (17%) being insertion patients. CONCLUSIONS: CVCs are essential for the management of cancer patients. However, they can become infected and may need to be removed. Catheter removal and insertion produced moderate to severe symptom burden in cancer patients. Safe interventions that would salvage the vascular access without worsening the infectious outcome should be explored to alleviate morbidity associated with the symptom burden of removal and re-insertion.

Unnecessary Removal of Central Venous Catheters in Cancer Patients with Bloodstream Infections.

We evaluated the rate of central venous catheter (CVC) removal in 283 cancer patients with bloodstream infections (BSIs). Removal of CVCs occurred unnecessarily in 57% of patients with non-central-line-associated BSI (non-CLABSI), which was equivalent to the rate of CVC removal in patients with CLABSIs. Physician education and safe interventions to salvage the vascular access are warranted. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:222-225.

A Novel Nonantibiotic Nitroglycerin-Based Catheter Lock Solution for Prevention of Intraluminal Central Venous Catheter Infections in Cancer Patients.

For long-term central lines (CL), the lumen is the major source of central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI). The current standard of care for maintaining catheter patency includes flushing the CL with saline or heparin. Neither agent has any antimicrobial activity. Furthermore, heparin may enhance staphylococcal biofilm formation. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of a novel nonantibiotic catheter lock solution for the prevention of CLABSI. Between November 2015 and February 2016, we enrolled 60 patients with hematologic malignancies who had peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) to receive the study lock solution. The study lock consisted of 15 or 30 µg/ml of nitroglycerin in combination with 4% sodium citrate and 22% ethanol. Each lumen was locked for at least 2 h once daily prior to being flushed. After enrollment of 10 patients at the lower nitroglycerin dose without evidence of toxicity, the dose was escalated to the higher dose (30 µg/ml). There were no serious related adverse events or episodes of hypotension with lock administration. Two patients experienced mild transient adverse events (one headache and one rash) possibly related to the lock and that resolved without residual effect. The CLABSI rate was 0 on lock days versus 1.6/1,000 catheter days (CD) off lock prophylaxis, compared with a rate of 1.9/1,000 CD at the institution in the same patient population. In conclusion, the nitroglycerin-based lock prophylaxis is safe and well tolerated. It may prevent CLABSI when given daily to cancer patients. Large, prospective, randomized clinical trials are needed to validate these findings. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT02577718.).

Improvement in the diagnosis of catheter-related bloodstream infections in a tertiary cancer center.

BACKGROUND: Identifying a central venous catheter (CVC) as the source of bacteremia requires drawing simultaneous blood cultures (BCs) from the CVC and peripheral site and correct labeling of the BC source. In our emergency center (EC), 52% of BCs collected from febrile cancer patients lacked source information, making the diagnosis and management of catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) challenging. METHODS: Between January 2015 and June 2015, we conducted a quality improvement project in our EC aiming to increase the occurrence of simultaneous BC drawing with accurate source labeling by 10%. RESULTS: Staff education and monitoring increased average BC source labeling from a baseline of 48% to a much better rate of 70%. Label introduction led to increased source labeling to 94% by June 2015. This project had a significant influence in patients with a CVC and a positive BC because the physician is now able to determine whether the CVC is the source of the bacteremia in 88% of cases compared with 36% at baseline (P = .0003). CONCLUSIONS: Education without an active intervention is usually not enough. Simple solutions such as label introduction can have significant influence on patient safety and care. Accurate diagnosis may guide clinicians at the bedside to appropriately manage CVCs in the setting of bacteremia, remove a CVC when indicated, and prevent unnecessary CVC removal with its potential safety and cost-effectiveness implications.