挑战

配置输液接入装置会增加血液感染的风险。87PC-infections

几乎所有的住院患者都插入了某种类型的输液接入装置以支持他们的治疗,且近87% 的血液感染与某种类型的静脉输液装置有关。1 据疾病控制中心估计在美国每年发生约 25 万起导管相关血液感染 (CRBSI)。2 尽管由导管相关血液感染引起的死亡率尚未明确,但这些感染都是高成本、高死亡率,且会延长患者的住院时间。2,3

我们的解决方案

Reduce -bacteria

 

您的无针静脉输液(IV)接着设计在限制医院获得性血液感染(HA-BSI)方面发挥了重大的作用。4

我们的输液治疗的每个产品都经过了精心的设计,通过为输液接头应用装置提供无针机械和微生物密闭系统,保护患者和医护人员的安全。我们的密闭无针接着采用开拓性反转分裂阻隔,直线型内部流体路径技术,可显著减少细菌的入侵和定植。这些装置通过创新的无针技术不仅增强患者安全性,也被证明能提供一个有效的微生物屏障,防止细菌转移和污染。5,6

无针输液接头的细菌转移和生物膜形成属性研究中,ICU Medical 的 MicroClave 优于所有细菌转移、生物膜形成和生物膜细菌形成中测试用的接头,证实可提供有效的细菌转移和定植屏障。这项研究中研究人员指出 MicroClave 可为临床医生提供一个防止细菌从外表面转移到患者血液的更高水平的保护,能帮助消除导管相关血液感染 (CRBSI)。5

接头总体平均对数 (CFU/冲洗)*P 值
MicroClave 2.5 ≤0.0001
SmartSite 3.6 ≥0.0677
ClearLink 3.6 ≥0.0677
Invision-Plus 3.8 ≥0.0677
Maximus 4 ≥0.0677
Q-Syte 4.8 ≤0.0001
接头接头对数密度插孔对数密度导管对数密度
MicroClave 2.123 1.871 1.011
ClearLink 2.591 2.368 1.101
Maximus 3.432 2.398 1.980
SmartSite 2.878 2.629 1.386
InVision-Plus 3.306 3.046 1.391
Q-Syte 3.348 3.159 2.223

*计算方法为最小二乘平均值

此外,血栓形成与患者的导管相关血液感染的风险增加有关。血纤维蛋白、血液成分和生物膜可以聚集,7 创造一个丰富的细菌生长的培养基,证实其能直接导致微生物进入血液中。8 我们的 Neutron 导管通畅设备是首家也是仅有的经 FDA 批准的设备,能防止所有类型的血液回流到导管并防止血栓形成,血栓是感染细菌的繁殖之地。

 

网络研讨会和报告

WebinarThumb

Needle-free Connectors: Split Septum vs. Mechanical Valve…Can this classification model predict infection risk? 

By Marcia Ryder, PhD MS RN. APIC 2010 Satellite Symposium, Tuesday, July 13th, 2010. Running time: 1hr. 27min

WebinarThumb

Vascular Access...Connection Without Infection!

By Marcia Ryder, PhD MS RN, Research Coordinator at the Center for Medical Biofilm Research University of Southern California. Running time: 58min.

参考文献

  1. Ryder, M. Catheter-related infections: It's all about biofilm. Topics Adv Pract Nurse Journal. 2005 [cited 2006 Sept 11]; 5(3). Available www.medscape.com/viewarticle/508109.
  2. Blot SI, Depuydt P, Annemans L, et al. Clinical and economic outcomes in critically ill patients with nosocomial catheter-related bloodstream infections. Clin Infect Dis 2005;41:1591-1598.
  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reduction in central line-associated bloodstream infections among patients in intensive care units-Pennsylvania, April 2001-March 2005. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2005;54:1013-1016.
  4. Jarvis W, MD. Choosing the Best Design for Intravenous Needleless Connectors to Prevent Bloodstream Infections. Infection Control Today, August 2010 (http://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/articles/2010/07/ choosing-the-best-design-for-intravenous-needleless-connectors-to-prevent-bloodstream-infections.aspx.)
  5. Ryder M, James G, Pulchini E, Bickle L, Parker A. Differences in bacterial transfer and fluid path colonization through needlefree connector-catheter systems in vitro. Presented at the Infusion Nursing Society Meeting, May 2011.
  6. Moore C, RN, MBA, CIC. Maintained Low Rate of Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections (CR-BSIs) After Discontinuation of a Luer Access Device (LAD) At an Academic Medical Center. Poster presented at the annual Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) Conference 2010, Abstract 4-028.
  7. Gorski, Lisa A MS, RN, CS, CRNI. Central Venous Access Device Occlusions: Part 1: Thrombotic causes and treatment. Home Healthcare Nurse. 21:2;115-121, February 2003.
  8. Ryder M. The role of biofilm in vascular catheter-related infections. N Dev Vasc Dis. 2001;2:15-25.