切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版) ›› 2021, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (04) : 333 -339. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-9450.2021.04.009

论著

烧伤患者中心静脉导管相关性血流感染的危险因素研究
吴红1, 李凤1, 席毛毛1, 谢卫国1,()   
  1. 1. 430060 武汉大学同仁医院暨武汉市第三医院烧伤科
  • 收稿日期:2021-05-18 出版日期:2021-08-05
  • 通信作者: 谢卫国
  • 基金资助:
    武汉市临床医学科研项目(WX15C08); 国家自然科学基金面上项目(81772097); 重大疾病防治科技行动计划创伤修复专项(2018-ZX-01S-001)

Risk factors of catheter-related bloodstream infection with central venous catheters in burn patients

Hong Wu1, Feng Li1, Maomao Xi1, Weiguo Xie1,()   

  1. 1. Department of Burns, Tongren Hospital of Wuhan University & Wuhan Third Hospital, Wuhan 430060, China
  • Received:2021-05-18 Published:2021-08-05
  • Corresponding author: Weiguo Xie
引用本文:

吴红, 李凤, 席毛毛, 谢卫国. 烧伤患者中心静脉导管相关性血流感染的危险因素研究[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2021, 16(04): 333-339.

Hong Wu, Feng Li, Maomao Xi, Weiguo Xie. Risk factors of catheter-related bloodstream infection with central venous catheters in burn patients[J]. Chinese Journal of Injury Repair and Wound Healing(Electronic Edition), 2021, 16(04): 333-339.

目的

探讨烧伤患者发生中心静脉导管(CVC)的导管相关性血流感染(CRBSI)的危险因素。

方法

前瞻性选择武汉大学同仁医院暨武汉市第三医院烧伤科2016年1月至2017年12月收治住院的烧伤患者,收集置管患者例数、置管例次、性别、年龄、置管血管种类、是否经创面置管、导管留置时间、烧伤面积以及统计CRBSI发生率,分析CRBSI的影响因素。数据比较采用Mann-Whitney U检验、卡方检验或Fisher确切概率法分析,2组间多重比较采用Bonferroni校正P值,采用二元logistic回归分析对CRBSI的影响因素进行多因素分析。绘制入选样本导管留置时间的受试者工作特征曲线。

结果

符合入选标准的烧伤患者共112例,218例次置管,平均每人置管(2.0±1.7)次;其中男91例,180例次(82.6%)置管,女21例,38例次(17.4%)置管;患者年龄7.0~74.0岁,平均年龄(45.4±13.0)岁;置管血管包括颈内静脉11例次、锁骨下静脉29例次、股动脉67例次及股静脉111例次。经创面置管130例(59.6%),经正常皮肤置管88例(40.4%);218例次导管留置时间2.0~48.0 d,平均置管时间(14.8±7.6)d,导管留置总时长3 224个导管日;烧伤面积范围为10.0%~99.0%总体表面积(TBSA),平均烧伤面积(67.7±23.3)%TBSA;发生CRBSI共32例次,总发生率14.7%,发生CRBSI的每千导管日感染发生率9.9‰。发生CRBSI感染的患者平均置管(3.7±3.4)例次与未发生CRBSI感染的患者平均(1.7±1.1)例次比较,差异有统计学意义(Z=4.406,P<0.001);男性患者CRBSI发生率14.4%(26/180)、女性患者15.8%(6/38),比较差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.045,P=0.831)。发生CRBSI感染的患者平均年龄(44.4±12.1)岁,与未发生CRBSI感染的患者平均年龄(45.6±13.2)岁比较,差异无统计学意义(Z=0.451,P=0.652)。不同种类的置管血管CRBSI发生率分别为颈内静脉27.3%(3/11)、锁骨下静脉24.1%(7/29)、股动脉14.9%(10/67)、股静脉10.8%(12/111),比较差异无统计学意义(χ2=4.396,P=0.222)。经正常皮肤和创面置管的CRBSI发生率分别为8.0%(7/88)和19.2%(25/130),比较差异有统计学意义(χ2=5.328,P=0.021);随导管留置时间的延长,CRBSI发生率显著增加,比较差异有统计学意义(χ2=21.151,P=0.001),其中导管留置6~10 d、11~15 d、16~20 d的患者CRBSI发生率分别为8.8%、11.4%、10.8%,均显著低于导管留置26~48 d患者的57.1%,差异均有统计学意义(χ2=14.496、12.986,P<0.05);根据本研究数据,预测CRBSI的导管留置时间受试者工作特征曲线下面积为0.696(95%CI:0.584~0.808,P<0.001),得到约登指数最大的导管安全留置时间为22 d,其灵敏度为46.9%,特异度为91.4%;随着烧伤面积增大,CRBSI发生率显著增加,比较差异有统计学意义(χ2=15.911,P=0.003),其中烧伤面积41%~60%TBSA的患者CRBSI发生率为3.9%,显著低于烧伤面积81%~99%TBSA患者的24.3%,差异有统计学意义(P=0.020);影响CRBSI的危险因素logistic回归分析结果显示,烧伤面积及导管留置时间为CRBSI的独立危险因素[比值比=[1.031(95%CI:1.008~1.054),P=0.008;比值比=1.109(95%CI:1.052~1.169),P<0.001]。

结论

经创面置管CRBSI发生率高于经正常皮肤置管;烧伤面积和导管留置时间是CRBSI独立危险因素;置管超过22 d发生CRBSI的可能性明显增高。

Objective

To study the risk factors of catheter-related bloodstream infection(CRBSI) with central venous catheters(CVC) in burn patients.

Methods

The burn patients admitted to Department of Burns, Tongren Hospital of Wuhan University & Wuhan Third Hospital from January 2016 to December 2017 were prospectively selected, and collected the number of catheterized patients, number of catheterization cases, gender, age, the types of catheterization vessels, whether the catheters was inserted through the wound, the catheter indwelling time, the burn area and the incidence of CRBSI, analyzed the influencing factors of CRBSI. Data comparisons were analyzed by Mann-Whitney U test, chi-square test or Fisher exact probability method. Multiple comparisons between the two groups were analyzed by Bonferroni-corrected P value, and binary logistic regression analysis was used to analyze the influencing factors of CRBSI. Draw the receiver operating characteristic curve of the catheter indwelling time of the selected samples.

Results

A total of 112 patients with burns who met the inclusion criteria were intubated with 218 catheterizations, with an average of (2.0±1.7) times catheterizations per person; among them, 91 were males, 180 times (82.6%) were catheterized, and 21 were females, with 38 times (17.4%) catheterizations; the patients were 7.0 to 74.0 years old, with an average age of (45.4±13.0) years old; the catheterization vessels included 11 cases of internal jugular vein, 29 cases of subclavian vein, 67 cases of femoral artery and 111 cases of femoral vein. One hundred and thirty cases (59.6%) were catheterized through the wound and 88 cases (40.4%) were catheterized through normal skin; in 218 cases, the catheter indwelling time was 2.0 to 48.0 days, the average catheter indwelling time was (14.8±7.6) days, and the total catheter indwelling time was 3 224 catheter days; the burn area ranged from 10.0% to 99.0% total body surface area (TBSA), and the average burn area was (67.7±23.3)% TBSA; a total of 32 cases of CRBSI occurred, and the total incidence was 14.68%, the infection rate per thousand catheter day of CRBSI was 9.9‰. Compared with the average (3.7±3.4) cases of patients with CRBSI infection and the average (1.7±1.1) cases of patients without CRBSI infection, the difference was statistically significant (Z=4.406, P<0.001); the CRBSI incidence of male patients was 14.4% (26/180) and which was 15.8% (6/38) of female patients, the difference was not statistically significant (χ2=0.045, P=0.831). The average age of patients with CRBSI infection was (44.4±12.1) years old, compared with the average age of patients without CRBSI infection (45.6±13.2) years old, the difference was not statistically significant (Z=0.451, P=0.652). The CRBSI incidences of different types of catheterization vessels was 27.3% (3/11) in the internal jugular vein, 24.1% (7/29) in the subclavian vein, 14.9% (10/67) in the femoral artery, and 10.8% in the femoral vein (12/111), respectively, and the differences were not statistically significant (χ2=4.396, P=0.222). The incidence of CRBSI for catheter placement through normal skin and wound surface was 8.0% (7/88) and 19.2% (25/130), respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (χ2=5.328, P=0.021); with the extension of catheter indwelling time, the incidence of CRBSI increased significantly, and the difference was statistically significant (χ2=21.151, P=0.001). The incidence of CRBSI was 8.8%, 11.4%, and 10.8% in patients with indwelling catheters for 6-10 days, 11-15 days, and 16-20 days, respectively, which were significantly lower than 57.1% of patients with catheter indwelling for 26-48 days, the difference were statistically significant (χ2=14.496, 12.986; P<0.05); according to the data of this study, the area under the curve of the catheter indwelling time of CRBSI was 0.696 (95%CI: 0.584-0.808, P<0.001), and the catheter indwelling time with the largest Jordan index was 22 days and with the sensitivity of 46.9% and the specificity of 91.4%. With the increase of burn area, the incidence of CRBSI increased significantly, and the difference was statistically significant (χ2=15.911, P=0.003). Among them, the incidence of CRBSI in patients with burn area of 41%-60% TBSA was 3.9%, which was significantly lower than that of 24.3% of patients with burn area of 81%-99% TBSA, the difference was statistically significant (P=0.020). The logistic regression analysis of risk factors affecting CRBSI showed that burn area and catheter indwelling time were independent risk factors for CRBSI {odds ratio=[1.031 (95%CI: 1.008-1.054), P=0.008; odds ratio=1.109 (95%CI: 1.052-1.169), P<0.001}.

Conclusion

The CRBSI incidence in the wound is higher than that in the normal skin; the total burn area and catheter indwelling time are independent risk factors for CRBSI; the possibility of CRBSI occurring after catheterization for more than 22 days is significantly higher.

表1 不同导管留置时间对CRBSI的影响
图1 218例次大面积烧伤患者导管留置时间预测CRBSI的导管留置时间受试者工作特征曲线 注:CRBSI为导管相关性血流感染
表2 不同烧伤面积对CRBSI的影响
表3 218例次置管发生CRBSI的多因素logistic回归分析
[1]
赵锐祎,金静芬,陈春芳,等. 19例群体重度烧伤患者静脉通路的护理管理[J]. 中华护理杂志2015, 50(6): 709-711.
[2]
中华医学会烧伤外科学分会. 严重烧伤患者深静脉置管操作和管理的全国专家共识(2020版)[J]. 中华烧伤杂志2021, 37(2): 101-112.
[3]
柴家科,郭振荣,盛志勇,等. 严重烧伤病人静脉导管引发脓毒症的因素分析[J]. 中华烧伤整形外科杂志1997, 13(3): 237-238.
[4]
高秀芳,郭爱芝. 重度烧伤患者深静脉穿刺置管的应用及护理[J]. 中外健康文摘2012, 9(50): 262-263.
[5]
何文英,马俊骥,张寸娟,等. 223例股中心静脉置管留置时间分析[J]. 河北医科大学学报2010, 31(11): 1366-1368.
[6]
叶应妩,王毓三,申子瑜. 全国临床检验操作规程[M]. 3版. 南京:东南大学出版社,2006.
[7]
Mermel LA, Allon M, Bouza E, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of intravascular catheter-related infection: 2009 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America[J]. Clin Infect Dis, 2009, 49(1): 1-45.
[8]
Ferretti G, Mandala M, Di cosimo S, et al. Catheter-related bloodstream infections, part II: specific pathogens and prevention[J]. Cancer Control, 2003, 10(1): 79-91.
[9]
夏梅,吴蔚,徐静. 心胸外科中心静脉导管感染患者的相关因素分析及预防对策[J]. 中国实用护理杂志2007, 23(13): 10-12.
[10]
黄靖雄. 中心静脉留置导管感染的预防[J]. 国外医学(护理学分册), 1996, 15(6): 255-256.
[11]
贾磊,郁慧杰,陆锦琪,等. 重症医学科导管相关性血流感染患者流行病学特点及危险因素[J]. 中华医学杂志2015, 95(9): 654-658.
[12]
吴红,丁汉梅,李莉,等. 武汉市第三医院烧伤重症监护病房三年间鲍氏不动杆菌分布及耐药性变化[J]. 中华烧伤杂志2010, 26(4): 296-299.
[13]
Dudeck MA, Horan TC, Peterson KD, et al. National Healthcare Safety Network(NHSN)report,data summary for 2009, device-associated module[J]. Am J Infect Control, 2011, 39(5): 349-367.
[14]
曾翠,陈玉华,贾会学,等. ICU导管相关性血流感染调查研究[J]. 中华医院感染学杂志2014, 24(21): 5304-5305, 5311.
[15]
Marschall J, Mermel LA, Fakih M, et al. Strategies to prevent central line-associated bloodstream infections in acute care hospitals: 2014 update[J]. Infect Cont Hosp Epidemiol, 2014, 35(7): 753-771.
[16]
王擂,刘淑丽,马莉,等. 连续性血液滤过患者中心静脉导管感染因素分析及对策[J]. 中华医院感染学杂志2013, 23(23): 5685-5686, 5697.
[17]
Bramesfeld A, Wrede S, Richter K, et al. Development of quality indicators and data assessment strategies for the prevention of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI)[J]. BMC Infect Dis, 2015, 15: 435.
[18]
斯一夫,姜建平,闫广玲,等. ICU患者中心静脉导管相关性感染病原菌与耐药性分析[J]. 中华医院感染学杂志2015, 25(6): 1331-1333.
[19]
马坚. 导管相关性血流感染的预防控制指南2011年版本[J]. 中华医院感染学杂志2011, 21(12): 2648-2650.
[20]
中华人民共和国卫生部办公厅. 〔2010〕187号外科手术部位感染预防与控制技术指南(试行)[S]. 北京:中华人民共和国卫生部,2010.
[21]
李春燕. 美国INS2016版《输液治疗实践标准》要点解读[J]. 中国护理管理2017, 17(2): 150-153.
[22]
热伊拜·亚迪佧尔,吴安华. 英国预防医院感染循证指南-导管相关血流感染的预防指南(Ⅱ)[J]. 中国感染控制杂志2014, 13(9): 575-576.
[23]
Siegman-Igra Y, Anglim AM, Shapiro DE, et a1. Diagnosis of vascular catheter-related bloodstream infection: a meta-analysis[J]. J Clin Microbiol, 1997, 35(4): 928-936.
[24]
邵小青,茅一萍,谭思源,等. 综合ICU导管相关性血流感染流行病学及病原学分析[J]. 中华医院感染学杂志2017, 27(12): 2672-2675.
[25]
Wu S, Ren S, Zhao H, et al. Risk factors for central venous catheter-related bloodstream infections after gastrointestinal surgery[J]. Am J Infect Control, 2017, 45(5): 549-550.
[1] 刘欢颜, 华扬, 贾凌云, 赵新宇, 刘蓓蓓. 颈内动脉闭塞病变管腔结构和血流动力学特征分析[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(08): 809-815.
[2] 马艳波, 华扬, 刘桂梅, 孟秀峰, 崔立平. 中青年人颈动脉粥样硬化病变的相关危险因素分析[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(08): 822-826.
[3] 黄应雄, 叶子, 蒋鹏, 詹红, 姚陈, 崔冀. 急性肠系膜静脉血栓形成致透壁性肠坏死的临床危险因素分析[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 413-421.
[4] 张再博, 王冰雨, 焦志凯, 檀碧波. 胃癌术后下肢深静脉血栓危险因素的Meta分析[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 475-480.
[5] 唐旭, 韩冰, 刘威, 陈茹星. 结直肠癌根治术后隐匿性肝转移危险因素分析及预测模型构建[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 16-20.
[6] 吴方园, 孙霞, 林昌锋, 张震生. HBV相关肝硬化合并急性上消化道出血的危险因素分析[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 45-47.
[7] 陈旭渊, 罗仕云, 李文忠, 李毅. 腺源性肛瘘经手术治疗后创面愈合困难的危险因素分析[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 82-85.
[8] 晏晴艳, 雍晓梅, 罗洪, 杜敏. 成都地区老年转移性乳腺癌的预后及生存因素研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 636-638.
[9] 莫闲, 杨闯. 肝硬化患者并发门静脉血栓危险因素的Meta分析[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 678-683.
[10] 陆猛桂, 黄斌, 李秋林, 何媛梅. 蜂蛰伤患者发生多器官功能障碍综合征的危险因素分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(9): 1010-1015.
[11] 李达, 张大涯, 陈润祥, 张晓冬, 黄士美, 陈晨, 曾凡, 陈世锔, 白飞虎. 海南省东方市幽门螺杆菌感染现状的调查与相关危险因素分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(08): 858-864.
[12] 李琪, 黄钟莹, 袁平, 关振鹏. 基于某三级医院的ICU多重耐药菌医院感染影响因素的分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(07): 777-782.
[13] 孟科, 李燕, 闫婧爽, 闫斌. 胶囊内镜胃通过时间的影响因素分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 671-675.
[14] 杨艳丽, 陈昱, 赵若辰, 杜伟, 马海娟, 许珂, 张莉芸. 系统性红斑狼疮合并血流感染的危险因素及细菌学分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 694-699.
[15] 孙培培, 张二明, 时延伟, 赵春燕, 宋萍萍, 张硕, 张克, 周玉娇, 赵璨, 闫维, 吴蓉菊, 宋丽萍, 郭伟安, 马石头, 安欣华, 包曹歆, 向平超. 北京市石景山区40岁及以上居民慢性阻塞性肺疾病患病情况及相关危险因素分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 711-719.
阅读次数
全文


摘要