Chlorhexidine gluconate-coated gel pad dressings for prevention of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infections in patients with hematologic diseases or autologous stem cell transplantation: A registry-based matched-pair analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG)-coated gel pad dressings for central venous catheter (CVC) may prevent CVC-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI). However, real-world data showing beneficial effects in patients with hematologic malignancies are scarce. METHODS: In a matched-pair analysis with data from a multicenter CVC registry, non-tunneled jugular and subclavian vein CVC in adults with hematologic malignancies or germ cell tumors (including patients receiving autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation [ASCT]) with CHG were compared with non-CHG dressings. The primary endpoint was definite CRBSI rate within 14 days (dCRBSI14) of CVC insertion; secondary endpoints were combined rate of definite or probable CRBSI within 14 days (dpCRBSI14), overall (dpCRBSI), and CRBSI incidences of all estimates. RESULTS: In total, 2070 CVCs were assessed. There was no statistically significant difference in dCRBSI14 (2.3% vs. 3.5%) between patients with and without CHG gel dressings. Likewise, with regards to dpCRBSI14 (6.2% vs. 6.3%) and the overall dpCRBSI rate (9.2% vs. 10.5%), no significant difference was detected. Furthermore, dCRBSI14 incidence (2.0 vs. 3.2/1000 CVC days), dpCRBSI14 incidence (5.4 vs. 5.6/1000 CVC days), and overall CRBSI incidence (5.5 vs. 6.0/1000 CVC days) showed no significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: CRBSI rates were not reduced by the use of CHG gel dressings in patients with hematologic malignancies and/or ASCT.

Impact of the insertion site of central venous catheters on central venous catheter-related bloodstream infections in patients with cancer: results from a large prospective registry.

PURPOSE: Overall, insertion of central venous catheter (CVC) into femoral veins (FV) has been shown to be associated with a higher risk of infection compared with subclavian and internal jugular (IJV/SCV) CVC, but no data are available on the impact of the FV insertion site on the CVC-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI) risk in patients with cancer. The objective of the study is to compare CRBSI rates and incidences of FV with those of internal jugular and subclavian vein (IJV/SCV CVC) as observed in the prospective SECRECY registry. METHODS: SECRECY is an ongoing observational, prospective, clinical CRBSI registry active in six departments of hematology/oncology in Germany. Each case of FV CVC was matched at a ratio of 1:1 to a case with IJV/SCV CVC. The propensity score was estimated using a multivariable logistic regression model adjusting for age, sex, cancer type, and duration of indwelling catheter. RESULTS: Of 4268 CVCs included in this analysis, 52 (1.2%) were inserted into the FV and 4216 (98.8%) into the IJV/SCV. 52 cases of FV CVC were matched with 52 IJV/SCV CVC. There was no significant difference in the CRBSI rate (3.8% vs. 9.6%), the CRBSI incidence (5.7 vs. 14.2/1000 CVC days), and the median CVC time (5.5 vs. 5 days) between the FV and the IJV/SCV group. CONCLUSION: Based on this data, inserting FV CVCs in patients with cancer does, at least in the short-term, not appear to be associated with an increased risk of CRBSI as compared to IJV/SCV CVC.

Scheduled removal of central venous catheters (CVC) to prevent CVC-related bloodstream infections in patients with hematological disease or autologous stem cell transplantation: a registry-based randomized simulation-study.

Although not generally recommended, scheduled central venous catheter (CVC) removal is sometimes carried out in order to reduce the CVC-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) incidence. We conducted a simulation for scheduled CVC removal within the multicenter CRBSI registry (SECRECY). Non-tunneled jugular and subclavian CVC in patients with hematological disease or with germ cell tumors (including patients receiving autologous stem cell transplantation [SCT]) were included. Cases were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to either a simulated, scheduled CVC removal after 7, 14, and 21 days, or to non-simulated, unscheduled CVC removal (control group). The primary endpoint was definitive CRBSI incidence for a scheduled CVC removal after 14 days (dCRBSI-D14rmv). Among other, secondary endpoints were definite CRBSI incidence for a scheduled removal after 7 days (dCRBSI-D7rmv) and 21 days (dCRBSI-D21rmv). Data on 2984 CVC were included. Patients' median age was 59 (range 16-95) years, 58.8% being male. The vast majority (98.4%) were patients with hematological malignancies. Jugular veins were the main insertion site (93.2%). dCRBSI-D14rmv was 3.10/1000 CVC days as compared to 4.15/1000 CVC days in the control group (p = 0.23). There was a significant difference between dCRBSI-D7rmv (0.86/1000 CVC days) and controls (p < 0.001), but not between dCRBSI-D21rmv (4.10/1000 CVC days) and controls (p = 0.96). Our data suggest that in patients with hematological diseases or autologous SCT recipients scheduled CVC removal after 14 days does not result in a lower CRBSI incidence compared to unscheduled removal.Trial registration: DRKS00006551, 2014/09/29, retrospectively registered.

Assessment of Chemotherapy-Induced Organ Damage with Ga-68 Labeled Duramycin.

PURPOSE: Evaluation of [68Ga]NODAGA-duramycin as a positron emission tomography (PET) tracer of cell death for whole-body detection of chemotherapy-induced organ toxicity. PROCEDURES: Tracer specificity of Ga-68 labeled NODAGA-duramycin was determined in vitro using competitive binding experiments. Organ uptake was analyzed in untreated and doxorubicin, busulfan, and cisplatin-treated mice 2 h after intravenous injection of [68Ga]NODAGA-duramycin. In vivo data were validated by immunohistology and blood parameters. RESULTS: In vitro experiments confirmed specific binding of [68Ga]NODAGA-duramycin. Organ toxicities were detected successfully using [68Ga]NODAGA-duramycin PET/X-ray computed tomography (CT) and confirmed by immunohistochemistry and blood parameter analysis. Organ toxicities in livers and kidneys showed similar trends in PET/CT and immunohistology. Busulfan and cisplatin-related organ toxicities in heart, liver, and lungs were detected earlier by PET/CT than by blood parameters and immunohistology. CONCLUSION: [68Ga]NODAGA-duramycin PET/CT was successfully applied to non-invasively detect chemotherapy-induced organ toxicity with high sensitivity in mice. It, therefore, represents a promising alternative to standard toxicological analyses with a high translational potential.