In Vitro Comparisons of Two Antimicrobial Intravenous Connectors

Cynthia Chernecky and Jennifer Waller
Additional contact information
Cynthia Chernecky: Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, cchernecky@mail.mcg.edu
Jennifer Waller: Medical College of Georgia, Augusta

Clinical Nursing Research, 2011, vol. 20, issue 1, 101-109

Abstract: Fifty percent of catheter-related bloodstream infections (CR-BSI) caused by organism migration through the fluid pathway (intraluminal) via a connector can be colonized within 24 hr. With a mean hospital stay of 4.8 days, intraluminal contamination is a primary source of CR-BSI. Purpose of this research was to determine which antimicrobial needleless connector produced the least bacterial colony-forming units (CFUs) in vitro and to compare these CFUs to the leading nonantimicrobial connector shown in previous research to have the lowest CFUs. Independent laboratory tested 2 antimicrobial (Baxter V-Link™, RyMed-7001 Nano ® ) and 1 nonantimicrobial (RyMed-5001) connector, 20 connectors each, 3 controls, each of 4 days, 4 organisms, under the same laboratory conditions. Baxter V-Link™ produced 2.0 to 8.8 times more bacteria than the RYM-5001 ® and RYM-7001 ® connectors, regardless of bacteria type. The antimicrobial connector with the most and consistent bacteria (13, 675 CFUs) over 4 days was the V-Link™ and the connector with no consistent bacteria was the RyMed-7001 ® . Nurses and researchers must include technological design, connector types, and methods of coating/ impregnating connectors as factors in evaluation.

Keywords: infection; connector; antimicrobial; comparative; evaluation (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2011
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1054773810375300 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:clnure:v:20:y:2011:i:1:p:101-109

DOI: 10.1177/1054773810375300

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Clinical Nursing Research
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().