IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/clnure/v20y2011i1p101-109.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

In Vitro Comparisons of Two Antimicrobial Intravenous Connectors

Author

Listed:
  • Cynthia Chernecky

    (Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, cchernecky@mail.mcg.edu)

  • Jennifer Waller

    (Medical College of Georgia, Augusta)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Cynthia Chernecky & Jennifer Waller, 2011. "In Vitro Comparisons of Two Antimicrobial Intravenous Connectors," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 20(1), pages 101-109, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:clnure:v:20:y:2011:i:1:p:101-109
    DOI: 10.1177/1054773810375300
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1054773810375300
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1054773810375300?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:clnure:v:20:y:2011:i:1:p:101-109. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.