Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T04:05:55.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intravenous Tubing Containing Burettes Can Be Safely Changed at 72 Hour Intervals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

David R. Snydman ,
Maureen Donnelly-Reidy ,
Linda K. Perry  and
William J. Martin
David R. Snydman*
Affiliation:
Departments of Medicine, Pathology and Epidemiology, New England Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
Maureen Donnelly-Reidy
Affiliation:
Departments of Medicine, Pathology and Epidemiology, New England Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
Linda K. Perry
Affiliation:
Departments of Medicine, Pathology and Epidemiology, New England Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
William J. Martin
Affiliation:
Departments of Medicine, Pathology and Epidemiology, New England Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
*
Box 238, New England Medical Center, 171 Harrison Avenue, Boston, MA 02111
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

No studies testing the safety of changing intravenous systems containing in-line burettes at 72 hours in an intensive care setting have been performed. Patients entering a medical or surgical intensive care unit were alternatively assigned to have any line with an in-line burette changed at either 48 hour (105 patients) or 72 hour (65 patients) intervals. Daily quantitative cultures with a 2 ml aliquot of burette fluid were obtained. Contaminated burette fluid was detected in 60 of 1181 (5.0%, 95% confidence interval, 3.7% to 6.3%) samples from the burettes changed at 48 hour intervals, and in 40 of 901 (4.4%, 95% confidence interval, 3.0% to 5.8%) samples from 72 hour interval burettes. Significant bacterial contamination of burette fluid, defined as ten or more colonies per milliliter, occurred in only seven (0.6%) cultures from patients in the 48 hour interval group compared with only three (0.3%) cultures in the 72 hour group. None of the contaminated burette fluids was associated with a primary bacteremia. Change of inline burettes in patients in intensive care at 72-hour intervals is safe and should result in substantial cost savings to hospitals.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , March 1987 , pp. 113 - 116
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1987

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.Gorbea, HF, Snydman, DR, Delaney, A, et al: Intensive care patients may have intravenous tubing with burettes safely changed at 48-hour intervals. JAMA 1984; 251:2112–2115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Buxton, AE, Highsmith, AK, Garner, JS, et al: Contamination of intravenous fluid: Effects of changing administration sets. Ann Inlern Med 1979; 90:764–768.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Band, JD, Maki, DG: Safety of changing intravenous delivery systems at longer than 24-hour intervals. Ann Intern Med 1979; 91:173–178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Simmons, BP: CDC Guidelines for the prevention and control of nosocomial infections. Guideline for prevention of intravascular infections. Am J Infect Control 1983; 11:183–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Josephson, A: Changing intravenous tubing containing burettes. JAMA 1985; 253:42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Snydman, DR: Changing intravenous tubing containing burettes (reply). JAMMA 1985; 253:42–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Lennette, EH, Balows, A, Hansler, WJ Jr, et al: 1980 Manual of Clinical Microbiology, ed 3. Washington DC, American Society for Microbiology, 1980.Google Scholar
8.Maki, DG, Weise, CE, Sarafin, HW: A semiquantitative culture method for identifying intravenous-catheier-related infection. N Engl J Med 1977; 296:1305–1309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Maki, DG, Jarrett, F, Sarafin, HW: A semiquantitative culture method for identification of catheter-related infection in the burn patient. J Surg Res 1977; 22:513–520.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Snydman, DR, Murray, SA, Kornfeld, SJ, et al: Total parenteral nutrition-related infections. Prospective epidemiologic study using semiquantitative methods. Am J Med 1982; 73:695–699.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Pocock, SJ: Clinical Trials. A Practical Approach. New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1983, p 129–130.Google Scholar
12.Josephson, A, Gombert, ME, Sierra, MF, et al: The relationship between intravenous fluid contamination and the frequency of tubing replacement. Infect Control 1985; 6:367–370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed