Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-hpxsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T17:49:22.296Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Improving Water Quality Can Reduce Pyrogenic Reactions Associated With Reuse of Cardiac Catheters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Rosemary E. Duffy ,
Braulio Couto ,
Jussara M. Pessoa ,
Carlos Starling ,
Silma Pinheiro ,
Michele L. Pearson ,
Matthew J. Arduino ,
Barbara J. Mattson  and
William R. Jarvis
Rosemary E. Duffy
Affiliation:
Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
Braulio Couto
Affiliation:
University of Belo Horizonte, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Jussara M. Pessoa
Affiliation:
Vera Cruz Hospital, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Carlos Starling
Affiliation:
Vera Cruz Hospital, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Silma Pinheiro
Affiliation:
Vera Cruz Hospital, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Michele L. Pearson*
Affiliation:
Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
Matthew J. Arduino
Affiliation:
Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
Barbara J. Mattson
Affiliation:
Ohio Department of Health, Columbus, Ohio
William R. Jarvis
Affiliation:
Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
*
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mailstop E-68, 1600 Clifton Road, NE, Atlanta, GA 30333
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To report the results of our preintervention investigation and subsequent 19-month three-phase intervention study designed to reduce pyrogenic reactions among patients undergoing cardiac catheterization using reprocessed catheters.

Design:

A case-control study for the preintervention period and a prospective cohort study for the intervention period.

Setting:

A 400-bed hospital in Belo Horizonte, Brazil.

Participants:

Any patient undergoing cardiac catheterization in the hospital.

Interventions:

Three intervention phases were implemented to improve the quality of the water supplied to the cardiac catheter reprocessing laboratory. Standard operating procedures for reprocessing cardiac catheters were established and reprocessing staff were trained and educated.

Results:

The rate of pyrogenic reactions decreased significantly during the intervention phases, from 12.8% (159 of 1,239) in phase 1 to 5.3% (38 of 712) in phase 2 to 0.5% (4 of 769) in phase 3 (chi-square test for linear trend, 97.5; P < .001).

Conclusion:

Improving water quality and using standard operating procedures for reprocessing catheters can prevent pyrogenic reactions in hospitalized patients.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 24 , Issue 12 , December 2003 , pp. 955 - 960
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2003 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Phillips, GB, Jorkasky, JF. Reuse of single use medical devices. Journal of Hospital Supply, Processing, and Distribution 1984;2:48–52.Google Scholar
2. Mayo, MS. Reuse of disposable medical devices. Urologie Nursing 1991;11:24.Google Scholar
3. Lacroix, D, Lucas, H, Stewart, I. Anxiety, misinformation and greed. Australian Nursing Journal 1994;5:17–20.Google Scholar
4. Conseil D'Evaluation Des Technologies De La Sante Du Quebec. The reuse of single-use cardiac catheters: safety, economical, ethical and legal issues. Can J Cardiol 1994;10:413–421.Google Scholar
5. Malchesky, PS, Chamberlain, VC, Scott-Conner, C. Reprocessing of reusable medical devices. ASAIO J 1995;41:146–151.10.1097/00002480-199506000-00004Google Scholar
6. Fullbrook, S. Legal aspects of the re-use of single use items. Br J Theatre Nurs 1998;8:37–39.Google Scholar
7. Felder, JH. Reuse of single-use medical devices. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 1999;18:80–81.Google Scholar
8. Day, M. Throwaway lines. Nursing Times 1995;91:18.Google Scholar
9. Hogan, JM, Colonna, TE. Product liability implications of reprocessing and reuse of single-use medical devices. Food and Drug Law Journal 1998;53:385–402.Google Scholar
10. Reprocessing medical devices sparks ongoing debate. Minimally Invasive Surgical Nursing 1996;10:74–79.Google Scholar
11. Parsons, M. The dilemma over the reuse of ‘single-use’ medical devices: a risk manager's perspective. Today's Surgical Nurse 1997;19:17–21.Google Scholar
12. Stoermer, WB. Reprocessing ‘single use’ devices: why is there so much debate? Today's Surgical Nurse 1999;21:27–33.Google Scholar
13. U.S. General Accounting Office. Report to Congressional Requesters. Single-Use Medical Devices: Little Available Evidence of Harm From Reuse, But Oversight Warranted. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, Health Education and Human Services Division; 2000. Report no. GAO/HEHS-00-123.Google Scholar
14. U.S. General Accounting Office. U.S. General Accounting Office Testimony. Medical Devices: Reprocessing and Reuse of Devices Labeled Single-Use. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, Health Education and Human Services Division; 2000. Report no. GAO/THEHS-00-143.Google Scholar
15. ECRI. ECRI Special Report. Reuse of Single-Use Medical Devices: Making Informed Decisions. Plymouth Meeting, PA: ECRI; 1997.Google Scholar
16. Verjat, D, Prognon, P, Darbord, JC. Fluorescence-assay on traces of protein on reusable medical devices: cleaning efficiency. Int J Pharm 1999;179:267–271.10.1016/S0378-5173(98)00396-2Google Scholar
17. Lee, RM, Francisco, V, Kozarek, RA, et al. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of a reusable double-channel sphincterotome. Gastrointest Endose 1999;49:477–482.10.1016/S0016-5107(99)70046-5Google Scholar
18. Willingmyre, GT. Reuse of disposable medical devices: ethical and economic questions in the reuse of single use devices. HealthSpan 1985;2:3–6.Google Scholar
19. Ravin, CE, Koehler, R, Reuse of disposable catheters and guide wires. Radiology 1977;122:577–579.Google Scholar
20. Frank, U, Herz, L, Daschner, FD. Infection risk of cardiac catheterization and arterial angiography with single and multiple use of disposable catheters. Clin Cardiol 1988;11:785–787.Google Scholar
21. Bentolila, P, Jacob, R, Roberge, F. Effect of re-use on the physical characteristics of angiographic catheters. J Med Eng Technol 1990; 14:254–259.Google Scholar
22. Daschner, FD. Nosocomial infections associated with cardiac catheterization and other invasive procedures in cardiology. In: Mayhall, CG, ed. Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins; 1996:675–679.Google Scholar
23. Guidelines for Healthcare Facilities, Canadian Hospital Association: The Reuse of Single-Use Medical Devices, 1996. Available at sprojects. http://mmi.mcgill.ca/heart/carechain.html. Accessed July 2003.Google Scholar
24. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health Office of Compliance. Enforcement Priorities for Single-Use Devices Reprocessed by Third Parties and Hospitals. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health Office of Compliance; 2003. Available at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/reuse/reuse-documents.html#8. Accessed July 2003.Google Scholar
25. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Enforcement of FDA Requirements on Reprocessing of Single Use Devices, April 23, 2001. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health Office of Compliance; 2001. Available at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/reuse/042301_reuse.html. Accessed July 2003.Google Scholar
26. Favero, MS. Requiem for reuse of single-use devices in U.S. hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2001;22:539–541.Google Scholar
27. Quirk, M. Most hospitals avoid reuse of single-use devices. Lancet Infect Dis 2002;2:714.10.1016/S1473-3099(02)00472-3Google Scholar
28. Rutala, W, Weber, D, eds. Reuse of single-use devices. In: Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities. Washington, DC: Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology; 2001. Available at http://www.apic.org/resc/disguidedraft.pdf. Accessed July 2003.Google Scholar
29. Heeg, P, Roth, K, Reichl, R, Cogdill, CP, Bond, WW. Decontaminated single-use devices: an oxymoron that may be placing your patients at risk for cross-contamination. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2001;22:542–549.10.1086/501949Google Scholar
30. Greene, WV. Reuse of disposable devices. In: Mayhall, CG, ed. Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1999:1201–1208.Google Scholar
31. English, N. Reprocessing disposables: one strategy to balance cost reduction and quality patient care. Today's Surgical Nurse 1996;18:23–26.Google Scholar
32. Hickey, M, Fields, M. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy lends itself well to another look at reusable vs. disposable instrument packs. Hospital Materials Management 1996;21:14–15.Google Scholar
33. Bauer, E, Denison, P, Faxon, D, et al. Endotoxic reactions associated with the reuse of catheters. MMWR 1979;28:25–27.Google Scholar
34. Lee, RV, Drabinsky, M, Wolfson, S, Cohen, LS, Atkins, E. Pyrogen reactions from cardiac catheterization. Chest 1973;63:757–761.10.1378/chest.63.5.757Google Scholar
35. Kudsin, RB, Walter, CW. Detection of endotoxin on sterile catheters used for cardiac catheterization. J Clin Microbiol 1980;11:209–212.10.1128/jcm.11.3.209-212.1980Google Scholar
36. Reyes, MP, Ganguly, S, Fowler, M, et al. Pyrogenic reactions after inadvertent infusion of endotoxin during cardiac catheterization. Ann Intern Med 1980;93:32–35.Google Scholar
37. Cookson, S, Nora, J, Kithas, J, et al. Pyrogenic reactions in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization associated with contaminated glass medicine cups. Catheter Cardiovasc Diagn 1997;42:12–18.10.1002/(SICI)1097-0304(199709)42:1<12::AID-CCD5>3.0.CO;2-C3.0.CO;2-C>Google Scholar
38. Jacobson, JA, Schwartz, CE, Marshall, HW, Conti, M, Burke, JP. Fever, chills and hypotension following cardiac catheterization with single and multiple use disposable catheters. Catheter Cardiovasc Diagn 1983;9:39–46.Google Scholar
39. Franson, MAH, Eaton, AD, Clesceri, LS, Greenberg, AE. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th ed. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1995.Google Scholar
40. Novitsky, TJ, Remillard, JF, Loy, N. Design criteria and evaluation of the LAL-4000 for kinetic turbidimetric LAL assay. Prog Clin Biol Res 1987;231:189–196.Google Scholar
41. Roslansky, PF, Dawson, ME, Novitsky, TJ. Plastics, endotoxins, and the limulus amebocyte lysate test. Journal of Parenteral Science and Technology 1991;45:83–87.Google Scholar
42. Remillard, JF, Gould, MC, Roslansky, PF, Novitsky, TJ. Quantitation of endotoxin in products using the LAL kinetic turbidimetric assay. Prog Clin Biol Res 1987;231:197–210.Google Scholar
43. Dean, AG, Dean, JA, Coulombier, D, et al. Epi Info, Version 6.04: A Word Processing, Database, and Statistical Program for Public Health on IBM-Compatible Microcomputers. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1995.Google Scholar
44. Alfa, MJ. Medical-device reprocessing. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000;21:496–498.Google Scholar
45. Kohn, LT, Corrigan, JM, Donaldson, MS. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press; 1999.Google Scholar
46. Kohn, LT, Corrigan, JM, Donaldson, MS. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press; 2001.Google Scholar