The findings showed that the total prevalence of systemic catheter infection among dialysis patients was 18%. In different studies, 1.6 - 67% of catheterizations in dialysis patients has induced systemic catheter-induced infection (
8). The CRI rates were 11% in Afshar et al.’s study in Kashan with a sample size of 43 patients (
9), 5% in Adib-Hajbagheri’s study in Isfahan with a sample size of 38 (
10), and 78% in Sanavi et al.’s (
11) study in Tehran with a sample size of 116 patients.
The inconsistencies in the findings of this study and those of the previous studies could be caused by the differences in study setting and time, as well as and patient variables. Differences in catheter care behaviors, catheter type, or placement time may also affect the outcomes (
4).
In different studies, the infection of the catheter site is reported to range from 4 to 15%. In the present study, local infection was observed in 3.1% of the patients. In general, in catheter-related infections, local infection, even in the presence of septicemia, is less common (
12). However, this study's lower infection rate may be due to the limited definition of catheter site infection in this research.
Similar to the present study, previous investigations have revealed the 40-80-percent CRI functions of gram-positive bacteria (
13,
14). In this research, gram-positive bacteria of Staphylococcus epidermis (59%) followed by Staphylococcus aureus (31.8%) were the most common microorganisms causing catheter infection. In many studies, there are different organisms, including Staphylococcus aureus accounting for 3 - 74% of infections, and Staphylococcus epidermis, inducing 7 - 42% of systemic infections (
13).
Accordingly, most of the microorganisms in the catheter are part of the skin's natural flora. Gram-positive bacteria are responsible for at least two-thirds of these infections. In temporary catheter infections, catheter colonization is usually (75 - 90% of cases) the result of microorganisms migrating from the tip of the catheter into a blood vessel. This observation indicates that the principles of sterility adopted during catheterization, dressings, and skin disinfection during the care procedures in this site can significantly affect the incidence of these infections (
15). Due to the prospective nature of this study, the researchers spared efforts to fully observe the principles of sterility for catheter placement. Given the temporary nature of these catheters and the fact that they remain in place for a maximum of two weeks, the transmission of infection from the skin to the tip of the catheter can be caused by the dressing care of the catheter site during these two weeks.
Studies have indicated that femoral catheters should be avoided, if possible because they cause more infectious and thrombotic complications compared to the internal jugular and subclavian catheters. They are also associated with a higher rate of deep vein thrombosis (
16). However, no relationship was noticed between catheter site and infection in this study. Regarding concerns about catheter dysfunction and the increased risk of infection, femoral catheters are usually less preferred than internal jugular catheters. However, in line with the findings of this research, several studies have not reported a significant relationship between the catheterization site and infection (
6,
17). Cathedia randomly selected 750 patients from 12 different intensive care units to place an internal femoral or jugular catheterization and documented a similar infection rate between femoral and internal jugular access (
18). There was no significant correlation between infectious complications and catheter failure with catheter placement in different studies. Some studies have reported a higher infection risk of internal jugular access (
3,
8-
10).
In this study, the CRI risk was not correlated with the patient's age, gender, diabetes, vascular disease, heart failure, and blood pressure. This finding was consistent with several other studies (
11,
13).
According to the findings of this study, gender does not predict CRI. Shirotani et al., Coker et al., and Mohammadkarimi et al.’s studies also documented no relationship between gender and CRI (
19,
20).
Poinen et al. found out that elderly patients accounted for about one-third of all circulatory infections induced by CVC; however, age was not a consistent predictor of the infection risk. Statistically, age was not associated with the incidence of infection (
21). However, in this study, younger ages increased the infection risk to some extent. In their studies, Bozzetti et al. and Murea et al. report that older people are less likely to develop infection (
22,
23).
Hypertension is introduced as a risk factor in different studies (
24,
25). Despite the impact of high blood pressure on CRI, it revealed no statistically significant effect. Pawar et al. and Hussein et al. also found no relationship between high blood pressure and CRI (
8,
14).
In some studies, diabetes is reported as a risk factor for CRI (
6,
24). A closer look at these studies suggests that catheter infection in diabetic patients may be a function of long-term usage of a catheter in such patients. However, in the long-term use of temporary catheters instead of venous, arterial fistulas can lead to infection, even in non-diabetic patients.
There was no significant relationship between the history of cardiovascular disease and CRI; however, the prevalence of infection was higher among cardiovascular patients. Marcos et al. and Fram et al. also detected no association between CRI and CVD (
26,
27).
The variety of etiological factors or follow-up time affects the frequency of risk factors reported in different centers (
7).
5.1. Limitations
This study had several limitations. First, the patients revealing no clinical septicemia were not tested for blood infections. Second, this study was performed during the COVID-19 pandemic, which could have affected the results. And finally, the other limitations of this study were not following up the dressings and not taking care of the catheter during the catheter usage time were. Accordingly, future researchers are recommended to consider this point in future prospective studies.
5.2. Conclusions
The CRI rate is relatively high among patients in Babol medical-teaching centers, who had undergone hemodialysis; however, sterile instructions were observed during the catheterization. The pattern of pathogenic catheter microorganisms observed in this study was similar to other studies, and the gram-positive bacteria of Staphylococcus epidermis and Staphylococcus aureus, which are the natural flora of the skin, induced systemic infection in the catheter. Attempts were made to observe the principles of sterility for catheters in this study as such, the transfer of bacteria from the skin to the tip of the catheter may be a function of care and dressings performed during the catheter usage. The findings indicated no relationship between the catheter site and the incidence of infection. Clinical history and patients' diseases were not associated with systemic catheter infection.