Emergency Department or Ward? Does the Insertion Environment Influence Bloodstream Infection Risk After Central Venous Catheter Placement?
- 1Division of Trauma Surgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
Abstract
Objective: To compare the incidence of central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) and catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) between emergency department (ED)-inserted and non-ED-inserted central venous catheters (CVCs).
Materials and Methods: This single-center retrospective cohort study evaluated adult trauma patients (aged ≥18) who underwent CVC placement at a Level 1 trauma center from 2018 to 2025.
Results: The study analyzed 500 CVC placements (156 ED, 344 non-ED). The overall mean age was 46.6 ± 19.39 years, and 72.4% were male. Primary diagnoses were predominantly multiple trauma (38.8%) and burn injuries (27.0%). The internal jugular vein was the primary site (69.8%). Overall CLABSI incidence was 18.0% (n = 90), with no significant difference between ED and non-ED groups (17.9% vs. 18.0%, p = 0.984). Overall CRBSI incidence was 4.0% (n = 20), showing no significant difference between groups (ED 5.1% vs. non-ED 3.5%, p = 0.535). Multivariable logistic regression identified no independent risk factors for either CRBSI or CLABSI. Similarly, time-dependent analyses at 7 and 14 days did not identify any significant risk factors for either infection.
Conclusion: ED central line insertion was not significantly associated with an increased risk of CRBSI or CLABSI. No independent risk factors for either infection were identified in this cohort, including in the time-dependent analyses. Larger prospective multicenter studies are needed to further evaluate potential risk factors for central line–associated infections in trauma patients.
Related
- Automated Calculation of the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) Intra-Abdominal Injury Rule from Unstructured Emergency Department Notes Using a Large Language Model
- Emergency Department Management of Ankle Fractures: A Narrative Review
- Antipsychotic-Induced Parkinsonism With Concurrent Benztropine-Associated Anticholinergic Effects in a Community Emergency Department Setting: A Case Report
- Emergency department medical care during civil unrest: thank you for looking at the eyes
- Rater Dependence in Emergency Department Catheter-Appropriateness Audits: A Prospective Three-Rater Study of Item-Level Reliability
BibTeX
@article{ueareekul2026emergency,
title = {{Emergency Department or Ward? Does the Insertion Environment Influence Bloodstream Infection Risk After Central Venous Catheter Placement?}},
author = {Metchanan Ue-areekul and Kris Keorochana and Somphon Roeksomtawin and Chidpong Siritongtaworn and Nantaporn Namviriyachote and Natthida Owattanapanich},
journal = {Siriraj Medical Journal},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.33192/smj.v78i11.283550},
url = {https://doi.org/10.33192/smj.v78i11.283550},
note = {CC BY-NC-ND},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Emergency Department or Ward? Does the Insertion Environment Influence Bloodstream Infection Risk After Central Venous Catheter Placement?
AU - Metchanan Ue-areekul
AU - Kris Keorochana
AU - Somphon Roeksomtawin
AU - Chidpong Siritongtaworn
AU - Nantaporn Namviriyachote
AU - Natthida Owattanapanich
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/05
JO - Siriraj Medical Journal
DO - 10.33192/smj.v78i11.283550
UR - https://doi.org/10.33192/smj.v78i11.283550
AB - Objective: To compare the incidence of central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) and catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) between emergency department (ED)-inserted and non-ED-inserted central venous catheters (CVCs). Materials and Methods: This single-center retrospective cohort study evaluated adult trauma patients (aged ≥18) who underwent CVC placement at a Level 1 trauma center from 2018 to 2025. Results: The study analyzed 500 CVC placements (156 ED, 344 non-ED). The overall mean age was 46.6 ± 19.39 years, and 72.4% were male. Primary diagnoses were predominantly multiple trauma (38.8%) and burn injuries (27.0%). The internal jugular vein was the primary site (69.8%). Overall CLABSI incidence was 18.0% (n = 90), with no significant difference between ED and non-ED groups (17.9% vs. 18.0%, p = 0.984). Overall CRBSI incidence was 4.0% (n = 20), showing no significant difference between groups (ED 5.1% vs. non-ED 3.5%, p = 0.535). Multivariable logistic regression identified no independent risk factors for either CRBSI or CLABSI. Similarly, time-dependent analyses at 7 and 14 days did not identify any significant risk factors for either infection. Conclusion: ED central line insertion was not significantly associated with an increased risk of CRBSI or CLABSI. No independent risk factors for either infection were identified in this cohort, including in the time-dependent analyses. Larger prospective multicenter studies are needed to further evaluate potential risk factors for central line–associated infections in trauma patients.
SN - 2228-8082
ER -