Clinician survey for the management of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection: Catheter retention versus replacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: When bloodstream infection (BSI) occurs in patients with a central venous catheter (CVC), the catheter may be the original source (catheter-related, CR) or may become a source for persistent infection. BSI should prompt an evaluation of CVC necessity, but there are challenges associated with CVC replacement. Methods: An online multinational survey was sent to professional societies of specialties involved in treating patients who have BSI and a CVC. Clinicians were asked to choose retention versus replacement for scenarios involving different CVC types, infection sources, and pathogens. Additional questions explored central venous catheter–related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) diagnosis, management, and willingness to enrol patients in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Results: A total of 220 physicians responded. For peripherally inserted central catheter–related BSI, most favoured CVC replacement, although there was variability across pathogens ( Candida spp 100%, Staphlococcus aureus 99%; Pseudomonas aeruginosa 94%; Enterococcus spp 75%; Enterobacterales 66%; coagulase-negative staphylococci 58%). For tunnelled CVC-related BSI, replacement recommendations also varied ( Candida 99%; S. aureus 95%; P. aeruginosa 87%; Enterococcus spp 58%; Enterobacterales 44%; coagulase-negative staphylococci 33%). For catheter-unrelated BSI, there was a lower tendency to replace the CVC. For each combination of pathogen and CVC type, a majority (>50%) of participants reported willingness to enrol patients into an RCT comparing CVC replacement versus retention; the only exceptions below 50% were S. aureus (44%) and Candida spp (44%) CRBSIs from short-term non-tunnelled CVCs. Conclusion: There is heterogeneity in CVC management practices and stated equipoise for an RCT comparing management approaches for a range of CVC types, BSI sources, and pathogens.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".