Taylor Geoffrey, Gravel Denise, Johnston Lynn, Embil John, Holton Donna, Paton Shirley
2E4.11 Walter McKenzie Center, University of Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2B7, Canada.
Am J Infect Control. 2004 May;32(3):155-60. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2003.05.007.
To assess incidence of and identify risk factors for bloodstream infection in patients starting hemodialysis or starting a new means of vascular access for hemodialysis.
Two cohorts of patients, 1 initiating hemodialysis (new patients) and a 1:1 matching group of patients continuing hemodialysis but starting a new vascular access (continuing patients), were enrolled from 9 Canadian hemodialysis units and followed for 6 months. Bloodstream infection was defined using established criteria. A nested case-control study was carried out, using as cases those cohort patients diagnosed with infection. Each case was matched with a control having the same means of access and new or continuing status.
A total of 527 patients (258 new, 269 continuing), were recruited and underwent 31,268 hemodialysis procedures during this 6-month follow-up. There were 96 bloodstream infections in 93 patients (11.97/10,000 days, 28.81/10,000 hemodialysis procedures), yielding a relative risk of infection of 3.33 (95% CI, 2.12-5.24) for patients with a previous bloodstream infection and 1.56 (95% CI, 1.02-2.38) for patients continuing hemodialysis by a new means of access. Survival analysis revealed that compared to arteriovenous fistula vascular access, the relative risk of bloodstream infection in patients was 1.47 (95% CI, 0.36-5.96) for arteriovenous grafts, 8.49 (95% CI, 3.03-23.78) for cuffed central venous catheters, and 9.87 (95% CI, 3.46-28.20) for uncuffed central venous catheters. The regression model of the case-control study identified earlier bloodstream infection (OR, 6.58), poor patient hygiene (OR, 3.48), and superficial access-site infection (OR, 4.36) as additional risk factors.
During the first 6 months there is a high rate of bloodstream infection in patients starting hemodialysis either for the first time or by a new means of vascular access. Previous hemodialysis bloodstream infection and continuing hemodialysis by a new means of vascular access are markers for an increased risk of infection, as is poor patient hygiene. Central venous catheter vascular access, whether cuffed or uncuffed, has a much higher infection risk. In this study, there was no difference in infection rate between cuffed and uncuffed central catheters.
评估开始进行血液透析或开始采用新的血液透析血管通路的患者发生血流感染的发生率,并确定其危险因素。
从9个加拿大血液透析单位招募了两组患者,一组开始进行血液透析(新患者),另一组为继续进行血液透析但开始采用新血管通路的患者(继续透析患者),两组按1:1匹配,随访6个月。血流感染采用既定标准进行定义。开展了一项巢式病例对照研究,将队列中被诊断为感染的患者作为病例。每个病例与具有相同通路方式和新患者或继续透析患者状态的对照进行匹配。
在这6个月的随访期间,共招募了527例患者(258例新患者,269例继续透析患者),进行了31268次血液透析操作。93例患者发生了96次血流感染(11.97/10000天,28.81/10000次血液透析操作),既往有血流感染的患者感染相对风险为3.33(95%CI,2.12 - 5.24),通过新的血管通路继续进行血液透析的患者感染相对风险为1.56(95%CI,1.02 - 2.38)。生存分析显示,与动静脉内瘘血管通路相比,动静脉移植物患者发生血流感染的相对风险为1.47(95%CI,0.36 - 5.96),带 cuff 的中心静脉导管患者为8.49(95%CI,3.03 - 23.78),不带 cuff 的中心静脉导管患者为9.87(95%CI,3.46 - 28.20)。病例对照研究的回归模型确定既往血流感染较早(比值比,6.58)、患者卫生状况差(比值比,3.48)和浅表通路部位感染(比值比,4.36)为其他危险因素。
在开始首次血液透析或采用新的血管通路进行血液透析的患者中,最初6个月内血流感染发生率较高。既往血液透析血流感染和采用新的血管通路继续进行血液透析是感染风险增加的标志,患者卫生状况差也是如此。中心静脉导管血管通路,无论是否带 cuff,感染风险都高得多。在本研究中,带 cuff 和不带 cuff 的中心静脉导管之间感染率无差异。