Study design: Meta-analysis of 27 randomized controlled trials.
Setting: Meta-analysis.
Synopsis: The authors report CVCs pre-treated with anti-infectives (AI-CVCs) are clinically effective in reducing the risk of CRBSI. The odds of having a CRBSI with a treated CVC versus an untreated CVC are 0.49 to 1 (95% CI, 0.37–0.64, 27 studies, fixed effects). The study also finds the use of AI-CVCs might provide a large cost savings in Great Britain. Because the findings are based on a meta-analysis, they are limited by the quality, context, and consistency of the original studies. The authors note that many of the studies had unsatisfactory descriptions of methodology. The current study is unable to separate the risk reduction attributable to AI-CVC versus that attributable to other infection control practices. Also, original data is insufficient to assess the benefits of AI-CVCs placed for longer than 12 days.
To summarize, AI-CVCs may present a means to reduce CRBSI, but more investigation of its role within infection control protocols is needed, as is investigation of longer duration of treatment.
Bottom line: Central venous catheters pre-treated with anti-infectives significantly reduce catheter-related bloodstream infections.
Citation: Hockenhull JC, Dwan KM, Smith GW, et al. The clinical effectiveness of central venous catheters treated with anti-infective agents in preventing catheter-related bloodstream infections: a systematic review. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(2):702-712.
Fivefold Increase in Hospitalists in the U.S. from 1995 to 2006
Clinical question: What is the growth rate of hospitalists and hospitalist-provided care?
Background: Survey data has shown a sharp increase in the number of hospitalists, but until now there have not been any national or population-based data on the growth of hospitalist care.
Study design: Descriptive analysis.
Setting: Medicare-enrolled patients.
Synopsis: The study is based on national Medicare data from 2.1 million admissions involving 990,785 patients in 5,800 hospitals and 120,226 general internists. It represents 5% of inpatient Medicare claims generated by general internists. The authors define “hospitalist” as a general internist who generates >90% of his or her claims from the care of hospitalized patients.
U.S. hospitals have seen substantial growth in hospitalists over the period examined. The nation saw a 500% increase in the number of general-internist hospitalists, and a 28% increase (to 37.1% in 2006 from 9.1% in 1995) in the number of Medicare patients who received care from a hospitalist. The odds that a hospitalized Medicare patient received care from a hospitalist increased 29.2% per year from 1997 to 2006. The percentage of hospitals with at least three hospitalists rose to 47.1% in 2006 from 11.6% in 1995.
This analysis might actually have underestimated HM’s growth. Analysis of Medicare claims does not identify pediatric hospitalists and hospitalists who work exclusively within HMOs. This analysis also did not include family practitioners or internal-medicine subspecialists who are hospitalists.
Bottom line: Medicare claims data confirm survey data findings: Hospitalists and hospitalist care has grown sharply over the last decade.
Citation: Kuo YF, Sharma G, Freeman JL, Goodwin JS. Growth in the care of older patients by hospitalists in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1102-1012.
Standardized Order Set for Bacteremic Sepsis Improves LOS and Mortality
Clinical question: Does a standardized order set for bacteremic sepsis impact patient management and outcomes?
Background: Prompt cardiovascular resuscitation and appropriate antibiotics decrease morbidity and mortality in bacteremic sepsis. This study examined whether hospitalwide, standardized sepsis order set improved management and outcomes.
Study design: Retrospective, before-and-after study design.
Setting: 1,200-bed academic medical center.
Synopsis: Two hundred patients with bacteremic severe sepsis were randomly selected from 18 months before the order set was introduced, and 200 were selected from 18 months after the order set was introduced. Primary outcomes measured were quantity of fluid administered and appropriate initial antibiotics. Secondary outcomes measured were hospital mortality and length of stay. Patients in the “after” group received more intravenous fluid (1627±1862 ml vs. 2054±2237 ml, P=.04), more appropriate antibiotics (53.0% vs. 65.5%, P=.01), had shorter hospital stays (28.7±30.1 days vs. 22.4±20.9 days, P=.02), and decreased in-house mortality (55.0% vs. 39.5%, P =<0.01).