Part 2: Insertion Bundle & Maintenance Bundle
Evidence-based insertion bundle components (hand hygiene, maximal sterile barriers, chlorhexidine antisepsis, site selection, daily necessity review) and maintenance bundle components (hub disinfection, CHG bathing, dressing management, needleless connectors, administration set changes) with supporting evidence.
1. The Bundle Concept
The concept of a “bundle” — a structured set of evidence-based interventions that, when implemented together and reliably, produce significantly better outcomes than when any element is used individually — was pioneered by a major healthcare improvement organization for CLABSI prevention and has become a cornerstone of patient safety worldwide.12
The fundamental principle is all-or-none compliance: partial implementation of bundle elements yields suboptimal results. Studies consistently demonstrate that achieving high (>95%) compliance with all bundle elements simultaneously produces the greatest CLABSI reduction, while compliance with most-but-not-all elements results in significantly less improvement. In the landmark Michigan collaborative, compliance with all five insertion bundle elements rose from 30% at baseline to 96% at 3 months, accompanied by a 66% reduction in CLABSI rates.2
2. The Central Line Insertion Bundle
2.1 Overview
The evidence-based insertion bundle consists of five components, each supported by strong evidence (Category IA or IB recommendations):123
| Component | Evidence Category |
|---|---|
| Hand hygiene | IA |
| Maximal sterile barrier precautions | IB |
| Chlorhexidine skin antisepsis (>0.5% CHG in alcohol) | IA |
| Optimal catheter site selection (avoid femoral in adults) | IA |
| Daily review of line necessity with prompt removal of unneeded lines | IA |
2.2 Hand Hygiene
Recommendation: Perform hand hygiene before and after palpating catheter insertion sites, before and after inserting, replacing, accessing, repairing, or dressing an intravascular catheter, and before donning sterile gloves for catheter insertion.34
Evidence and Rationale:
- Hand hygiene is the single most important measure for preventing healthcare-associated infections, including CLABSI
- Acceptable agents include alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR; 60–95% ethanol or isopropanol) or antimicrobial soap and water (if hands are visibly soiled)
- ABHR is preferred when hands are not visibly soiled because of superior antimicrobial efficacy, speed of action, and better skin tolerance
- Hands must also be cleaned after removal of gloves, as gloves do not provide complete protection against hand contamination
- Hand hygiene compliance should be monitored as part of unit-level infection prevention programs, with a target of >90% compliance34
Implementation Considerations:
- ABHR dispensers should be placed at the point of care (within arm’s reach of the catheter insertion area)
- Central line insertion checklists should include a hand hygiene verification step
- The observer (nurse or trained monitor) should confirm hand hygiene before allowing the procedure to proceed
2.3 Maximal Sterile Barrier Precautions
Recommendation: Use maximal sterile barrier precautions — including cap, mask, sterile gown, sterile gloves, and a large sterile full-body drape — during the insertion of central venous catheters, PICCs, and guidewire exchanges.35
Evidence and Rationale:
A landmark randomized controlled trial demonstrated that maximal sterile barriers reduced catheter colonization and CLABSI by approximately sixfold compared with standard precautions (sterile gloves and a small drape only). The absolute risk reduction was 3.5 CLABSI per 1,000 catheter-days. Despite higher initial supply cost, the reduced infection rate translated into significant net cost savings.5
| Precaution Level | Components | Relative Infection Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Standard (historical) | Sterile gloves + small fenestrated drape | Reference (1.0) |
| Maximal sterile barrier | Cap + mask + sterile gown + sterile gloves + large full-body drape covering the patient from head to toe | ~0.16 (84% relative risk reduction) |
Implementation Considerations:
- All personnel present during the procedure (operators, assistants, observers) should wear cap and mask
- The large drape should be sufficiently sized to cover the patient from head to toe and extend over the sides of the bed to maintain a sterile field
- Commercially available central line insertion kits containing all maximal sterile barrier components are recommended to simplify compliance
- Ultrasound probe covers (sterile) are required when using ultrasound guidance during sterile insertion
2.4 Chlorhexidine Skin Antisepsis
Recommendation: Prepare the insertion site with >0.5% chlorhexidine preparation in alcohol (standard preparation: 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol) before central venous catheter insertion and during dressing changes. If there is a contraindication to chlorhexidine, tincture of iodine, an iodophor (povidone-iodine), or 70% alcohol may be used as alternatives.36
Evidence and Rationale:
A meta-analysis of eight randomized controlled trials comparing chlorhexidine-based preparations to povidone-iodine for catheter site antisepsis demonstrated a 49% reduction in CLABSI with chlorhexidine (relative risk 0.51, 95% CI 0.27–0.97).6 The combination of chlorhexidine with alcohol provides both rapid bactericidal activity (from alcohol) and sustained residual activity (from chlorhexidine that binds to the stratum corneum).3
Application Technique:
- Apply chlorhexidine-alcohol solution using a back-and-forth friction scrub
- Cover an area of at least 20 cm (approximately 8 inches) in diameter centered on the insertion site
- Continue scrubbing for a minimum of 30 seconds
- Allow the antiseptic to dry completely before insertion — minimum dry time is approximately 2 minutes for chlorhexidine-alcohol preparations
- Do not blot or fan dry — allow to air dry to permit full antimicrobial activity
- Do not apply the antiseptic solution and then wipe it off before it dries
Contraindications and Special Considerations:
| Situation | Recommendation |
|---|---|
| Known chlorhexidine allergy/hypersensitivity | Use povidone-iodine or 70% alcohol |
| Premature neonates <26 weeks gestational age or <1000 g birthweight during the first 2 weeks of life | Chlorhexidine products have not been fully evaluated in this population; povidone-iodine may be preferred. If chlorhexidine is used, monitor for skin reactions |
| History of chlorhexidine anaphylaxis | Absolute contraindication; use alternative agents |
| Application near eyes, ears, or mucosal surfaces | Avoid chlorhexidine contact with mucous membranes |
2.5 Optimal Catheter Site Selection
Recommendation: In adult patients, use the subclavian site rather than the jugular or femoral sites for nontunneled central venous catheters to minimize infection risk, when not contraindicated. Avoid the femoral site in adult patients whenever possible.37
Evidence by Insertion Site:
| Site | Infection Risk | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subclavian | Lowest infection risk | Lower colonization rates due to thinner skin flora density; easier to maintain clean occlusive dressing; lower DVT risk | Higher risk of pneumothorax and subclavian vein stenosis (avoid in hemodialysis patients or those who may need future AV fistula); contraindicated with severe coagulopathy; difficult to compress in bleeding |
| Internal jugular | Intermediate infection risk | Lower pneumothorax risk than subclavian; accessible under ultrasound; compressible | Higher colonization risk due to proximity to oropharyngeal secretions and tracheostomy sites; dressing adherence may be challenging due to neck movement and diaphoresis |
| Femoral | Highest infection risk in adults | Easily accessible; compressible; no risk of pneumothorax; suitable for emergent access | Highest infection and DVT risk; difficult to maintain clean dressing in the inguinal area; associated with 2–3 fold higher CLABSI rates compared with subclavian; contraindicated for long-term use |
Key Evidence:
A major multicenter randomized trial (the 3SITES trial) comparing subclavian, internal jugular, and femoral catheterization in adult ICU patients found:7
- Subclavian site was associated with the lowest risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection and symptomatic deep vein thrombosis
- Femoral site had the highest risk of catheter colonization (hazard ratio 1.35 compared with subclavian) and overall catheter-related complications
- Internal jugular site had intermediate infection risk
- Subclavian site had the highest risk of pneumothorax (1.5% vs 0.1% for internal jugular)
- The investigators concluded that the subclavian site should be preferred when not contraindicated
Site Selection by Clinical Scenario:
| Clinical Scenario | Preferred Site(s) | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Standard ICU central access | Subclavian (first choice) > internal jugular | Lowest infection risk |
| Emergent access / cardiopulmonary resuscitation | Femoral (temporary) or internal jugular | Speed of access; no interruption of chest compressions |
| Coagulopathy / thrombocytopenia (severe) | Internal jugular (ultrasound-guided) or femoral | Compressible sites; subclavian not easily compressible |
| Hemodialysis access | Internal jugular (right side preferred) | Subclavian associated with subclavian vein stenosis precluding future AV fistula creation |
| TPN requiring long-term access | Subclavian > internal jugular | Lowest infection risk for prolonged dwell |
| Tracheostomy in place | Subclavian > femoral | Internal jugular dressing contamination from tracheal secretions |
| Bilateral subclavian stenosis | Internal jugular or femoral (temporary) | Subclavian not available |
Ultrasound Guidance:
Real-time ultrasound guidance for internal jugular vein catheterization is strongly recommended (Category IB) and should be considered standard of care. Ultrasound guidance reduces the number of insertion attempts, time to cannulation, mechanical complications (arterial puncture, hematoma), and failed insertions. Meta-analytic evidence demonstrates significant reductions in all of these outcomes.38 While ultrasound guidance for subclavian and femoral access is also supported by growing evidence, the strongest data are for internal jugular cannulation.
2.6 Daily Review of Line Necessity and Prompt Removal
Recommendation: Assess the need for continued central venous access daily, and promptly remove any central line that is no longer essential. There is no indication for routine replacement of central lines at fixed time intervals to prevent infection.39
Evidence and Rationale:
- Each additional day of central line dwell increases CLABSI risk
- Up to 30% of central line-days in ICUs may be unnecessary (lines left in place without active indications)
- Randomized trials of scheduled catheter exchange at fixed intervals (e.g., every 7 days) versus as-needed replacement showed no reduction in CLABSI with routine exchange and an increased risk of mechanical complications; thus routine scheduled replacement is not recommended3
- Daily “line necessity” discussions during multidisciplinary rounds — asking “Does this patient still need a central line?” — reduce unnecessary catheter-days by 20–30% and contribute to CLABSI rate reduction9
Implementation Strategies:
- Include central line necessity as a standard item on daily ICU rounding checklists
- Empower bedside nurses to prompt physicians/APPs regarding line necessity
- Use electronic health record clinical decision support (daily prompts or reminders) to flag central lines without active indications
- Establish automatic stop orders or mandatory reassessment orders for central lines
- Consider transition to peripheral IV access or midline catheter when central access is no longer strictly required
3. The Central Line Maintenance Bundle
The maintenance bundle addresses ongoing catheter care after insertion and targets the intraluminal colonization pathway — the predominant mechanism of CLABSI for catheters that have been in place for more than 10–14 days.11011
3.1 Hand Hygiene Before and After Accessing the Line
Recommendation: Perform hand hygiene with alcohol-based hand rub or antimicrobial soap and water before and after every access of the central line, including medication administration, blood draws, tubing changes, dressing changes, and any other manipulation.34
This is the same standard as for insertion and applies to every encounter with the catheter system. Compliance must be monitored and maintained at >90%.
3.2 Scrub the Hub
Recommendation: Disinfect catheter hubs, needleless connectors, and injection ports immediately before each access using an appropriate antiseptic agent with vigorous mechanical friction (scrubbing) for a minimum of 15 seconds (some organizations recommend 15–30 seconds). Allow to dry before accessing.31011
Acceptable Agents for Hub Disinfection:
| Agent | Notes |
|---|---|
| 70% isopropyl alcohol | Most commonly used; rapid bactericidal action |
| Chlorhexidine-alcohol combination swab | Provides residual activity |
| Povidone-iodine | Alternative if alcohol or chlorhexidine contraindicated |
| Commercial single-use antiseptic wipes | Standardize the disinfection process |
Critical Technique Elements:
- Use a new antiseptic wipe or swab for each access
- Apply vigorous mechanical friction (the physical scrubbing action is as important as the antiseptic agent)
- Scrub all surfaces of the hub/connector — top, sides, and threads
- Allow to dry for at least 5–15 seconds before accessing (varies by institutional protocol)
- Access the line immediately after disinfection; if the connector has been contaminated (e.g., dropped, touched non-aseptically), repeat disinfection
Passive Disinfection Caps:
Passive disinfection caps (also called port protectors) contain 70% isopropyl alcohol and are designed to be applied to needleless connectors between accesses, providing continuous antisepsis of the connector surface. Evidence from multiple before-and-after studies and some randomized trials demonstrates:1012
- 40–60% reduction in CLABSI rates with routine use of passive disinfection caps
- Improved standardization of hub disinfection (eliminates variability in scrub time and technique)
- Particularly effective in settings where manual scrub-the-hub compliance is suboptimal
- Should be applied immediately after access and replaced after each use
3.3 Daily Chlorhexidine Gluconate (CHG) Bathing
Recommendation: Bathe ICU patients with ≥2% chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated cloths daily to reduce skin bioburden and CLABSI risk. This practice is recommended as a supplemental strategy and is most strongly supported in adult ICU settings.111314
Evidence:
The REDUCE MRSA trial — a large, multicenter cluster-randomized trial involving 74 ICUs and over 74,000 patients — demonstrated that daily CHG bathing (combined with universal MRSA nasal decolonization with mupirocin) reduced:14
- MRSA-positive clinical cultures by 37%
- All-cause bloodstream infections by 44%
- CLABSI specifically (as a secondary outcome) by a significant margin
Additional supporting evidence:
| Study | Design | Key Finding |
|---|---|---|
| Climo et al. (2013) | Multicenter cluster-randomized crossover trial; 9 ICUs and bone marrow transplant units | Daily CHG bathing reduced CLABSI by 56% (incidence rate ratio 0.44, 95% CI 0.28–0.68) and reduced VRE and MRSA acquisition by 23%13 |
| Milstone et al. (2013) | Multicenter RCT; pediatric ICUs | Daily CHG bathing reduced bacteremia by 36% in pediatric ICU patients15 |
| Multiple systematic reviews | Meta-analyses of CHG bathing trials | Consistent 40–56% reduction in CLABSI across adult ICU populations11 |
Application Protocol:
- Use no-rinse 2% CHG-impregnated disposable cloths (preferred over liquid CHG soap for standardization and ease of use)
- Bathe the patient daily from the neck down, covering all major skin surfaces (chest, abdomen, back, arms, legs, axillae, inguinal areas)
- Do not apply to the face, open wounds, mucous membranes, or eyes
- Allow to air dry — do not rinse off
- Replace traditional soap-and-water bathing with CHG bathing for daily hygiene in ICU patients
- Continue daily CHG bathing for the duration of central line placement
Contraindications and Precautions:
| Situation | Action |
|---|---|
| Known chlorhexidine allergy/sensitivity | Do not use; substitute non-CHG bathing |
| Burn patients with open wounds | Avoid CHG on open wound surfaces |
| Neonates <2 months of age or <26 weeks gestational age | Use with caution; consult institutional protocol |
| Patients with significant dermatitis or skin breakdown | Evaluate risk-benefit; may exacerbate irritation |
3.4 Dressing Management
Recommendation: Use either sterile gauze or a sterile transparent semipermeable dressing to cover the catheter insertion site. Replace dressings when they become damp, loosened, visibly soiled, or at scheduled intervals (every 2 days for gauze dressings; every 5–7 days for transparent semipermeable dressings). Replace the dressing whenever the catheter site is inspected or the site is palpated through the dressing.311
Dressing Types:
| Dressing Type | Change Interval | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transparent semipermeable polyurethane (e.g., Tegaderm, OpSite) | Every 5–7 days (or sooner if integrity compromised) | Allows continuous visual inspection of insertion site; secures catheter; allows bathing | May trap moisture if not applied properly; may not adhere well to diaphoretic patients |
| Sterile gauze and tape | Every 2 days (or sooner if integrity compromised) | Useful if site is bleeding or oozing; better moisture absorption | Site not visible for inspection; requires more frequent changes; higher nursing workload |
| Gauze under a transparent dressing | Every 2 days (treated as a gauze dressing) | Combines moisture absorption with transparent dressing security | Still requires 2-day change interval; reduced visibility |
CHG-Impregnated Dressings:
Chlorhexidine-impregnated transparent dressings (e.g., CHG-containing gel pads integrated into transparent dressings) provide sustained local antisepsis at the catheter insertion site. Major trial evidence includes:1617
| Trial | Design | Key Finding |
|---|---|---|
| Timsit et al. (2012) — DRESSING study | Multicenter RCT; 1,636 adult ICU patients | CHG-impregnated sponge dressings reduced major catheter-related infections by 60% (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18–0.86) and catheter colonization by 49%16 |
| Timsit et al. (2018) — DRESSING2 study | Multicenter RCT; 1,879 adult ICU patients | CHG-containing gel dressings reduced catheter-related infections by 65% (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.15–0.77) compared with standard dressings17 |
CHG-impregnated dressings are recommended as a supplemental strategy when CLABSI rates remain above institutional goals despite high compliance with the standard insertion and maintenance bundle.11
Dressing Change Procedure:
- Perform hand hygiene
- Don clean gloves to remove the old dressing
- Inspect the insertion site for signs of infection (erythema, tenderness, purulence, induration)
- Remove gloves and perform hand hygiene
- Don sterile gloves
- Clean the site with >0.5% chlorhexidine in alcohol using a back-and-forth friction scrub; allow to dry completely
- Apply a new sterile dressing; ensure complete adherence to the skin without wrinkles or gaps
- Date and initial the new dressing
- Document site assessment findings
3.5 Needleless Connector Management
Recommendation: Access intravascular catheters only with sterile devices. Minimize the number of catheter accesses. Disinfect needleless connectors before each access. Replace needleless connectors at least every 72 hours or per manufacturer instructions, and immediately replace if contaminated, damaged, or if residual blood or debris is present.31011
Needleless Connector Types:
| Type | Mechanism | Fluid Displacement | Key Considerations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Split septum | A slit silicone septum that opens when a male luer-lock is inserted | Negative | Must be flushed after disconnection to prevent blood reflux; associated with lower occlusion rates in some studies |
| Mechanical valve (positive displacement) | Internal mechanical valve opens on connection | Positive (clears catheter lumen on disconnection) | May be easier to use; some designs associated with higher contamination rates due to complex internal pathways |
| Mechanical valve (neutral displacement) | Internal valve maintains zero fluid displacement | Neutral | Minimizes blood reflux; increasingly popular |
| Simple luer-activated | Basic valve that opens on luer-lock connection | Variable | Least complex internal mechanism; easier to disinfect |
Connector Selection Considerations:
- No single connector type has been definitively proven superior for CLABSI prevention in large randomized trials
- The ease of disinfection (smooth, flat septum surfaces) may be more important than the specific displacement mechanism
- Complex internal valve mechanisms with crevices may harbor organisms and be more difficult to disinfect
- Institutional standardization of a single connector type is recommended to simplify training and maintenance10
3.6 Administration Set Change Intervals
Recommendation: Replace administration sets (IV tubing) at intervals based on the type of infusion, not on a calendar schedule unrelated to infusate type.311
| Infusion Type | Set Change Interval | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Continuous crystalloid infusions (not containing blood products, lipids, or TPN) | No more frequently than every 96 hours, but at least every 7 days | Randomized trials demonstrate no increase in infection risk with extended (96-hour to 7-day) intervals compared with 24–48-hour intervals |
| Intermittent infusions (secondary sets used for intermittent medications) | Every 24 hours or with each use (per institutional policy) | Higher contamination risk due to repeated disconnection/reconnection |
| Blood and blood product administration | At the completion of the transfusion or within 4 hours of initiation | Blood products support rapid microbial growth at room temperature |
| Lipid-containing parenteral nutrition (3-in-1 admixtures) | Every 24 hours | Lipid emulsions promote microbial growth |
| Lipid emulsions alone (e.g., propofol, IV fat emulsion) | Every 12 hours (or with each new bottle/vial for propofol per manufacturer) | Lipid emulsions are excellent growth media for bacteria and fungi |
| Propofol infusions | Replace tubing every 6–12 hours per manufacturer labeling; replace unused propofol vials at 6–12 hours | Propofol vehicle (soybean oil emulsion) supports rapid bacterial growth |
3.7 Catheter Securement
Recommendation: Use a sutureless securement device to reduce the risk of infection at the insertion site. If sutures are used, ensure aseptic placement and monitor for suture-site inflammation.311
Evidence:
- Sutureless securement devices (adhesive anchoring devices, subcutaneous stabilization devices) eliminate skin punctures from sutures, reducing a potential portal of entry for organisms
- Meta-analyses suggest a modest reduction in catheter-related infections with sutureless securement compared with suture fixation
- Sutureless devices also reduce needlestick injury risk for clinicians11
4. Insertion Bundle Compliance Monitoring
4.1 The Central Line Insertion Checklist
A standardized insertion checklist should be used for every central line insertion. The checklist serves as both a cognitive aid and a compliance monitoring tool. A trained observer (typically the bedside nurse) reviews the checklist in real time and is empowered to stop the procedure if any bundle element is violated.218
Essential Checklist Elements:
| Item | Verification |
|---|---|
| Indication for central line confirmed | Documented indication (vasopressors, TPN, multiple incompatible infusions, hemodynamic monitoring, lack of peripheral access) |
| Hand hygiene performed | Observer confirms |
| Maximal sterile barriers in place | Cap, mask, sterile gown, sterile gloves, full-body drape |
| Chlorhexidine skin antisepsis applied | >0.5% CHG in alcohol, 30-second scrub, allowed to dry |
| Optimal site selected | Subclavian preferred (if not contraindicated); femoral avoided if possible |
| Ultrasound guidance used (internal jugular) | Documentation of real-time ultrasound guidance |
| Sterile dressing applied | Transparent semipermeable dressing or sterile gauze, dated and initialed |
| Post-procedure imaging ordered (if applicable) | Chest radiograph for subclavian or internal jugular catheters |
4.2 Nurse Empowerment to Stop the Procedure
A critical element of the insertion bundle is the empowerment of the bedside nurse (or trained observer) to halt the procedure if a break in sterile technique is observed or if any required bundle element is omitted. This practice was a cornerstone of the landmark statewide collaborative that achieved dramatic CLABSI reductions. Institutional culture must explicitly support this empowerment through:218
- Written institutional policies affirming the authority of any team member to stop a procedure for safety concerns
- Administrative backing from unit leadership and physician champions
- Non-punitive reporting systems for near-misses and bundle violations
- Regular feedback sessions reinforcing that stopping the procedure for safety is expected and valued
5. Central Line Insertion Cart (Supply Standardization)
A dedicated central line insertion cart (or pre-assembled kit) containing all supplies needed for a bundle-compliant insertion reduces omission of bundle elements and streamlines the procedure.218
Recommended Cart/Kit Contents:
| Category | Items |
|---|---|
| Sterile barrier supplies | Caps, masks, sterile gowns, sterile gloves (multiple sizes), large full-body sterile drape, sterile ultrasound probe cover |
| Antisepsis | 2% CHG in 70% alcohol applicators (multiple, in case of contamination) |
| Catheter kits | Central venous catheter kits (various lumen numbers, sizes), sterile guidewires, dilators |
| Dressing supplies | Transparent semipermeable dressings, sterile gauze, CHG-impregnated dressings (if institutional standard), tape, dressing labels |
| Securement | Sutureless securement devices, skin protectant |
| Flushing supplies | Pre-filled sterile saline syringes, heparin flush (if applicable per catheter type) |
| Ultrasound | Sterile ultrasound gel, sterile probe covers (if not included in kit) |
| Checklist | Printed insertion checklist/observer form |
| Sharps disposal | Portable sharps container |
6. Summary: Bundle Components and Evidence Strength
Insertion Bundle
| Component | Evidence Category | Key Supporting Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Hand hygiene | IA | Systematic reviews demonstrating reduced HAI with improved hand hygiene compliance4 |
| Maximal sterile barrier precautions | IB | RCT showing 6-fold reduction in CLABSI with maximal barriers vs. standard precautions5 |
| >0.5% CHG in alcohol skin antisepsis | IA | Meta-analysis: 49% reduction in CLABSI vs. povidone-iodine6 |
| Optimal site selection (subclavian preferred) | IA | 3SITES RCT: subclavian had lowest CRBSI and DVT risk7 |
| Daily line necessity review | IA | Observational data: 20–30% of central line-days may be unnecessary; removal reduces CLABSI9 |
Maintenance Bundle
| Component | Evidence Category | Key Supporting Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Hand hygiene before/after access | IA | As above4 |
| Scrub the hub (15–30 seconds, mechanical friction) | IA | Observational and before-after studies: hub contamination is the dominant mechanism for long-term catheter CLABSI10 |
| Daily CHG bathing | IB–II | REDUCE MRSA trial: 44% reduction in all bloodstream infections; Climo et al.: 56% reduction in CLABSI1314 |
| Dressing management (appropriate type and timely changes) | IB | DRESSING and DRESSING2 trials (for CHG-impregnated dressings); observational data for standard dressing care1617 |
| Needleless connector disinfection | IB | Before-after studies: passive disinfection caps reduce CLABSI by 40–60%12 |
| Administration set change intervals per infusate type | IA | RCTs demonstrating safety of extended change intervals for crystalloid infusions3 |
Institute for Healthcare Improvement. “How-to Guide: Prevent Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections (CLABSI).” Cambridge, MA: IHI; 2012. URL: https://www.ihi.org/resources/tools/how-to-guide-prevent-central-line-associated-bloodstream-infections ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Pronovost P, Needham D, Berenholtz S, et al. “An Intervention to Decrease Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections in the ICU.” N Engl J Med. 2006;355(26):2725-2732. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa061115 ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
O’Grady NP, Alexander M, Burns LA, et al. “Guidelines for the Prevention of Intravascular Catheter-Related Infections, 2011.” Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52(9):e162-e193. DOI: 10.1093/cid/cir257 ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Boyce JM, Pittet D. “Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings: Recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force.” MMWR Recomm Rep. 2002;51(RR-16):1-45. URL: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5116a1.htm ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Raad II, Hohn DC, Gilbreath BJ, et al. “Prevention of Central Venous Catheter-Related Infections by Using Maximal Sterile Barrier Precautions during Insertion.” Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1994;15(4 Pt 1):231-238. DOI: 10.2307/30145574 ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Chaiyakunapruk N, Veenstra DL, Lipsky BA, Saint S. “Chlorhexidine Compared with Povidone-Iodine Solution for Vascular Catheter-Site Care: A Meta-Analysis.” Ann Intern Med. 2002;136(11):792-801. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-136-11-200206040-00007 ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Parienti JJ, Mongardon N, Megarbane B, et al. “Intravascular Complications of Central Venous Catheterization by Insertion Site.” N Engl J Med. 2015;373(13):1220-1229. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1500964 ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Brass P, Hellmich M, Kolodziej L, Schick G, Smith AF. “Ultrasound Guidance versus Anatomical Landmarks for Internal Jugular Vein Catheterization.” Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(1):CD006962. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006962.pub2 ↩︎
Ista E, van der Hoven B, Kornelisse RF, et al. “Effectiveness of Insertion and Maintenance Bundles to Prevent Central-Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections in Critically Ill Patients of All Ages: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16(6):724-734. DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(15)00409-0 ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Marschall J, Mermel LA, Fakih M, et al. “Strategies to Prevent Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections in Acute Care Hospitals: 2014 Update.” Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35(7):753-771. DOI: 10.1086/676533 ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Buetti N, Marschall J, Drees M, et al. “Strategies to Prevent Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections in Acute-Care Hospitals: 2022 Update.” Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2022;43(5):553-569. DOI: 10.1017/ice.2022.87 ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Voor In ’t Holt AF, Helder OK, Vos MC, et al. “”; Merrill KC, Sumner S, Linford L, Taylor C, Macintosh C. “Impact of Universal Disinfection Cap Implementation on Central-Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections.” Am J Infect Control. 2014;42(12):1274-1277. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2014.09.008 ↩︎ ↩︎
Climo MW, Yokoe DS, Warren DK, et al. “Effect of Daily Chlorhexidine Bathing on Hospital-Acquired Infection.” N Engl J Med. 2013;368(6):533-542. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1113849 ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Huang SS, Septimus E, Kleinman K, et al. “Targeted versus Universal Decolonization to Prevent ICU Infection.” N Engl J Med. 2013;368(24):2255-2265. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1207290 ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Milstone AM, Elward A, Song X, et al. “Daily Chlorhexidine Bathing to Reduce Bacteraemia in Critically Ill Children: A Multicentre, Cluster-Randomised, Crossover Trial.” Lancet. 2013;381(9872):1099-1106. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61687-0 ↩︎
Timsit JF, Schwebel C, Bouadma L, et al. “Chlorhexidine-Impregnated Sponges and Less Frequent Dressing Changes for Prevention of Catheter-Related Infections in Critically Ill Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” JAMA. 2009;301(12):1231-1241. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2009.376 ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Timsit JF, Mimoz O, Mourvillier B, et al. “Randomized Controlled Trial of Chlorhexidine Dressing and Highly Adhesive Dressing for Preventing Catheter-Related Infections in Critically Ill Adults.” Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012;186(12):1272-1278. DOI: 10.1164/rccm.201206-1038OC ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Berenholtz SM, Pronovost PJ, Lipsett PA, et al. “Eliminating Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections in the Intensive Care Unit.” Crit Care Med. 2004;32(10):2014-2020. DOI: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000142399.70913.2F ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎