Catheter-associated bloodstream infection in patients with cancer: comparison of left- and right-sided insertions.

BACKGROUND: There is limited research on the relationship between side of insertion of central venous catheter (CVAD) and bloodstream infection risk in patients with cancer. AIM: To conduct an exploratory analysis of data from a randomized control trial (RCT) and data from a prospective cohort study to compare infection rates for right- and left-sided insertions. METHODS: The study populations were patients aged >14 years with cancer from two tertiary hospitals in Brisbane, Australia. The primary endpoint was catheter-associated bloodstream infection (CABSI) adjudicated by blinded assessors. For the RCT, randomized intention-to-treat comparisons were conducted between left- and right-side allocated insertion for early (≤14 days) and late (>14 days) infection using Cox proportional hazards regression. The RCT data were also combined with cohort study data collected from one of the hospitals prior to the RCT and non-randomized comparisons conducted between left- and right-sided insertions. FINDINGS: In 634 randomly allocated CVADs there were 141 CABSIs. Analysis showed strong evidence of right-side allocated insertions having an increased risk of early infection by 2.5 times (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.3-4.7); however, there was no evidence of increased risk for late infection (hazard ratio: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.71-1.59). Results from analysis of the RCT and cohort study data combined (2786 CVADs and 385 CABSIs) were similar. CONCLUSION: There appears to be an increased risk of CABSI in patients with cancer for CVAD inserted into the right-side for around two weeks after line insertion. The mechanism underpinning the increased risk is unknown.

Catheter-associated bloodstream infections in adults with cancer: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A common complication of central venous access devices (CVADs) is catheter-associated bloodstream infection (CABSI). We previously demonstrated that insertion of CVADs on the right side was associated with increased risk of CABSI, and hypothesized that this related to the predominance of right-handedness in the patient population, resulting in greater movement and bacterial contamination. AIM: To perform a prospective randomized, controlled, non-blinded study to determine whether the side of CVAD insertion influenced the incidence of CABSI. METHODS: Adult cancer patients were randomly allocated to either dominant or non-dominant side CVAD insertion. The primary endpoint of the study was the number of line-days until CABSI, determined in a blinded fashion by two assessors. FINDINGS: In all, 640 CVADs were randomized to dominant (N = 322) or non-dominant (N = 318) side of insertion, 60% had haematological malignancies, and 40% solid tumours. CVADs were a peripherally inserted central catheter line (67%), tunnelled CVAD (23%), and non-tunnelled CVAD (10%). Twenty-two percent of CVADs were complicated by CABSI. The rate of CABSI per 1000 line-days was 3.49 vs 3.66 in the non-dominant vs dominant group (hazard ratio (HR): 0.91; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.65-1.28). By multivariable analysis, the rate of CABSI was increased by: use of tunnelled CVADs compared to peripherally inserted central venous catheter lines (HR: 2.05; 95% CI: 1.45-2.91); having a haematological malignancy compared to non-gastrointestinal solid tumours (5.55; 2.47-12.5); but not dominant compared to non-dominant side of CVAD (0.97; 0.69-1.36). CONCLUSION: CABSI in adult patients with cancer was not impacted by whether CVAD insertion was on the dominant or non-dominant side.