Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:16:24.205Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Frequency of Intravenous Administration Set Changes and Bacteremia: Defining the Risk

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Robert R. Muder
Robert R. Muder*
Affiliation:
Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System and theUniversity of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
*
Infectious Disease Section, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, University Dr C, Pittsburgh, PA 15240
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , March 2001 , pp. 134 - 135
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2001

References

1. Mermel, LA. Prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:391–402.Google Scholar
2. Maki, DG, Rhame, FS, Mackel, DC, Bennet, JV. Nationwide epidemic of septicemia caused by contaminated intravenous products, I: epidemiologic and clinical features. Am J Med 1976;60:471–485.Google Scholar
3. Duma, RJ, Warner, JF, Dalton, HP. Septicemia from intravenous infusions. N Engl J Med 1971;284:257–260.Google Scholar
4. Goetz, AM, Rihs, JD, Chow, JW, Singh, N, Muder, RR. An outbreak of infusion-related Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteremia in a liver transplantation unit. Clin Infect Dis 1995;21:1501–1503.Google Scholar
5. Pearson, ML. Guideline for prevention of intravascular-device–related infections. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996;17:438–473.Google Scholar
6. Buxton, AE, Highsmith, AK, Garner, JS, West, CM, Stamm, WE, Dixon, RE, et al. Contamination of intravenous infusion fluid: effects of changing administration sets. Ann Intern Med 1979;90:764–768.Google Scholar
7. Gorbea, HF, Snydman, DR, Delaney, A, Stockman, J, Martin, WJ. Intravenous tubing with burettes can be safely changed at 48-hour intervals. JAMA 1984;251:2112–2115.Google Scholar
8. Band, JD, Maki, DG. Safety of changing intravenous delivery systems at longer than 24-hour intervals. Ann Intern Med 1979;91:173–178.Google Scholar
9. Maki, DG, Botticelli, JT, LeRoy, ML, Thielke, TS. Prospective study of replacing administration sets for intravenous therapy at 48- vs 72-hour intervals. 72 hours is safe and cost-effective. JAMA 1987;258:1777–1781.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Raad, I, Hanna, HA, Awad, A, Alrahwan, A, Bivins, C, Khan, A, et al. Optimal frequency of changing intravenous administration sets: is it safe to prolong use beyond 72 hours? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2001;22:136–139.Google Scholar
11. Pittet, D, Tarara, D, Wenzel, RP. Nosocomial bloodstream infection in critically ill patients. Excess length of stay, extra costs, and attributable mortality. JAMA 1994;271:1598–1601.Google Scholar