Bloodstream Infection Prevention in ESRD: Forging a Pathway for Success

Prevention of Bloodstream Infections in Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis

Bloodstream infections are an important cause of hospitalizations, morbidity, and mortality in patients receiving hemodialysis. Eliminating bloodstream infections in the hemodialysis setting has been the focus of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Making Dialysis Safer for Patients Coalition and, more recently, the CDC's partnership with the American Society of Nephrology's Nephrologists Transforming Dialysis Safety Initiative. The majority of vascular access-associated bloodstream infections occur in patients dialyzing with central vein catheters. The CDC's core interventions for bloodstream infection prevention are the gold standard for catheter care in the hemodialysis setting and have been proven to be effective in reducing catheter-associated bloodstream infection. However, in the United States hemodialysis catheter-associated bloodstream infections continue to occur at unacceptable rates, possibly because of lapses in adherence to strict aseptic technique, or additional factors not addressed by the CDC's core interventions. There is a clear need for novel prophylactic therapies. This review highlights the recent advances and includes a discussion about the potential limitations and adverse effects associated with each option.

We still go for the jugular: implications of the 3SITES central venous catheter study for nephrology

The 3SITES study randomly assigned a nontunneled central venous catheter site in over 3000 adults treated in intensive care units. The subclavian site was associated with a lower rate of short-term complications, including catheter-related bloodstream infection and deep venous thrombosis, compared to the femoral or internal jugular site. Nephrologists should be aware of this study and should continue to advocate for alternatives to subclavian vein catheter placement in patients with chronic kidney disease who are expected to require arteriovenous access for dialysis in the future.

Reducing blood stream infection in patients on hemodialysis: Incorporating patient engagement into a quality improvement activity

Introduction Infection in our immunocompromised patients is the second leading cause of death, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In an effort to improve quality of care, engage patients in their own care, and reduce morbidity and mortality secondary to infection, the Network designed a joint quality improvement/patient engagement activity to decrease bloodstream infection (BSI) rates. Methods Dialysis facilities were ranked utilizing 2014 National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) data. Selection included 20% of Network 13 facilities (n = 58) with the highest BSI rates, which captured 31% of the patient population. Findings Statistically significant (P < 0.001) improvement was reached in the reduction of BSIs; increasing patient engagement in the infection control process; and, correct completion of hand hygiene audits. Significant (P < 0.01) improvement was reached in correct completion of cannulation audits. There was also improvement in the catheter audits, but results were not significant. Discussion Involving patients in the infection control process contributed to our successful outcomes and could be replicated to meet the needs of the end stage renal disease community as a whole.

Chlorhexidine for routine PD catheter exit-site care

PURPOSE

Although guidelines suggest the routine use of mupirocin or gentamicin at the exit site of PD catheter, our PD unit has been using chlorhexidine gluconate 0.5 % as exit-site care protocol. The aim of this study was to ascertain whether mupirocin application is superior to the traditionally applied chlorhexidine-regarding prevention of exit-site infections and peritonitis in our unit.

METHODS

Stable incident and prevalent patients of our unit were randomized to apply mupirocin or chlorhexidine at exit site. The study started on July 1, 2010, and continued till December 2014. End point was the first episode of exit-site infection or peritonitis.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients (mean age 58.5 ± 14.6 years) were randomized. At the end of follow-up, there were 33 patients on mupirocin treatment and 29 on chlorhexidine. The two groups had no differences in age, sex, PD vintage or PD mode. The only difference between the two groups was the percentage of patients with diabetes, 28 % in chlorhexidine group versus 10 % in mupirocin group. Mean time of follow-up was 28.46 ± 16.37 months. Twenty-four episodes of infections (peritonitis and exit site) were recorded. Time to first infection episode was 32 months in mupirocin group (95 % CI 21.4-42.5) versus 29 months (95 % CI 8.6-49.4) in chlorhexidine group. The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed no difference in the infections between the two protocols (log-rank test, p = 0.477).

CONCLUSIONS

Mupirocin is not superior in preventing infections comparing with chlorhexidine in this cohort of patients.