Lorente L, Lecuona Fernandez M, González-Mesa A, Oliveras-Roura J, Rosado C, Cabrera P, Casal E, Jiménez A, Mora ML, Madueño A. Adding vortexing to the Maki technique provides no benefit for the diagnosis of catheter colonization or catheter-related bacteremia. World J Crit Care Med 2024; 13(1): 89085 [PMID: 38633472 DOI: 10.5492/wjccm.v13.i1.89085]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Leonardo Lorente, MD, PhD, Medical Assistant, Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Universitario de Canarias, Ofra s/n, La Laguna 38320, Spain. lorentemartin@msn.com
Research Domain of This Article
Critical Care Medicine
Article-Type of This Article
Prospective Study
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Mar 9, 2024 (publication date) through Mar 6, 2026
Times Cited of This Article
Times Cited (0)
Journal Information of This Article
Publication Name
World Journal of Critical Care Medicine
ISSN
2220-3141
Publisher of This Article
Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA
Share the Article
Lorente L, Lecuona Fernandez M, González-Mesa A, Oliveras-Roura J, Rosado C, Cabrera P, Casal E, Jiménez A, Mora ML, Madueño A. Adding vortexing to the Maki technique provides no benefit for the diagnosis of catheter colonization or catheter-related bacteremia. World J Crit Care Med 2024; 13(1): 89085 [PMID: 38633472 DOI: 10.5492/wjccm.v13.i1.89085]
World J Crit Care Med. Mar 9, 2024; 13(1): 89085 Published online Mar 9, 2024. doi: 10.5492/wjccm.v13.i1.89085
Adding vortexing to the Maki technique provides no benefit for the diagnosis of catheter colonization or catheter-related bacteremia
Leonardo Lorente, Maria Lecuona Fernandez, Adriana González-Mesa, Judith Oliveras-Roura, Cristina Rosado, Pablo Cabrera, Emma Casal, Alejandro Jiménez, María Luisa Mora, Ana Madueño
Leonardo Lorente, Adriana González-Mesa, Judith Oliveras-Roura, Cristina Rosado, Pablo Cabrera, María Luisa Mora, Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Universitario de Canarias, La Laguna 38320, Spain
Maria Lecuona Fernandez, Emma Casal, Ana Madueño, Microbiology and Infection Control Service, Hospital Universitario de Canarias, La Laguna 38320, Spain
Alejandro Jiménez, Research Unit, Hospital Universitario de Canarias, La Laguna 38320, Spain
Author contributions: Lorente L conceived, designed and coordinated the study, participated in acquisition and interpretation of data, and drafted the manuscript; Lecuona M, González-Mesa, Oliveras-Roura J, Rosado C, Cabrera P, Casal E, Mora ML and Madueño A participated in acquisition of data; Jiménez A participated in the interpretation of data; all authors revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content, made the final approval of the version to be published and were agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
Institutional review board statement: The Institutional Board of Hospital Universitario de Canarias (San Cristóbal de La Laguna) approved the study protocol.
Clinical trial registration statement: This study is registered at https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. The registration identification number is NCT06216184.
Informed consent statement: All study participants, or their legal guardian, provided informed written consent prior to study enrollment.
Conflict-of-interest statement: There are no conflicts of interest to declare.
Data sharing statement: The datasets generated during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
CONSORT 2010 statement: The authors have read the CONSORT 2010 statement, and the manuscript was prepared and revised according to the CONSORT 2010 statement.
Corresponding author: Leonardo Lorente, MD, PhD, Medical Assistant, Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Universitario de Canarias, Ofra s/n, La Laguna 38320, Spain. lorentemartin@msn.com
Received: October 20, 2023 Peer-review started: October 20, 2023 First decision: December 28, 2023 Revised: January 12, 2024 Accepted: February 21, 2024 Article in press: February 21, 2024 Published online: March 9, 2024 Processing time: 136 Days and 20.7 Hours
Abstract
BACKGROUND
A previous study compared vortexing and Maki techniques for the diagnosis of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), and concluded that vortexing was not superior to Maki method.
AIM
To determine whether the combined use of vortexing and Maki techniques provides profitability versus the Maki technique for the diagnosis of catheter tip colonization (CTC) and CRBSI.
METHODS
Observational and prospective study carried out in an Intensive Care Unit. Patients with suspected catheter-related infection (CRI) and with one central venous catheter for at least 7 days were included. The area under the curve (AUC) of the Maki technique, the vortexing technique and the combination of both techniques for the diagnosis of CTC and CRBSI were compared.
RESULTS
We included 136 episodes of suspected CRI. We found 21 cases of CTC of which 10 were also CRBSI cases. Of the 21 CTC episodes, 18 (85.7%) were diagnosed by Maki technique and vortexing technique, 3 (14.3%) only by the technique of Maki, and none only by technique of vortexing. Of the 10 CRBSI episodes, 9 (90.0%) were diagnosed by the techniques of Maki and vortexing, 1 (10.0%) was diagnosed only by the technique of Maki, and none only by the technique of vortexing. We no found differences in the comparison of AUC between the technique of Maki and the combination of Maki and vortexing techniques for the diagnosis of CTC (P = 0.99) and CRBSI (P = 0.99).
CONCLUSION
The novel finding of our study was that the combined use of vortexing and Maki techniques did not provide profitability to the technique of Maki alone to CRBSI diagnosis of.
Core Tip: A previous study compared vortexing and Maki techniques for the diagnosis of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), and concluded that vortexing was not superior to Maki the method. The novel finding of our study was that the combined use of vortexing and Maki techniques did not provide profitability to the technique of Maki alone to the diagnosis of CRBSI.
