Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

Vascular Catheters Inserted in the Trenches Versus Guideline Documents: Can the Discrepancies Be Resolved?

Robert J. Sherertz , MD and William R. Jarvis , MD
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology
Vol. 24, No. 12 (December 2003), pp. 887-889
DOI: 10.1086/502155
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/502155
Page Count: 3
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Item Type
Article
References
Vascular Catheters Inserted in the Trenches Versus Guideline Documents: Can the Discrepancies Be Resolved?
Preview not available

Abstract

EXCERPT Infection control personnel familiar with the studies underlying recent guideline recommendations for the prevention of intravascular catheter–related infections1 could conclude that it would be easy to minimize the risk of such infections. Randomized, controlled trials have demonstrated that prepping the skin with chlorhexidine antiseptic can reduce the risk of catheter‐related bloodstream infection (BSI) to less than 1%,2 using maximal sterile barriers also can reduce the risk of catheter‐related BSI to less than 1%,3 choosing a central venous catheter (CVC) with anti‐infective properties can reduce the risk of catheter‐related BSI to 1% or less,4‐6 and, finally, education can reduce the risk of catheter‐related BSI associated with physicians‐in‐training.7,8 Yet, despite these impressive results in short prospective studies, in practice it is uncommon to find endemic catheter‐related BSI rates less than 1%.

Page Thumbnails