Which type of central venous access device (CVAD) has a lower risk of infection?

Which type of central venous access device (CVAD) has a lower risk of infection?

• A. Non-tunneled catheters
• B. External tunneled catheters
• C. Implanted ports
• D. Peripheral IV lines

Answer: (B)

The correct choice indicates that external tunneled catheters are associated with a lower risk of infection compared to other types of central venous access devices. External tunneled catheters, such as Hickman or Broviac catheters, are designed with a mechanism that allows them to be positioned under the skin, creating a tunnel from the insertion site to a central vein. This tunneling provides an additional layer of protection against bacteria that may otherwise enter the body at the surface layer, significantly reducing the chance of infection compared to non-tunneled catheters, which are directly inserted into the vein and have a higher risk of skin flora contaminating the entry site. Implanted ports also have a low infection risk, but they require a more complex procedure for access; thus, they don't offer practical long-term use in situations where frequent access is necessary. Peripheral IV lines, while they are less invasive, do not provide the same long-term access for central venous therapy and have a higher infection risk due to their placement and the nature of peripheral veins. Overall, the design and placement technique of external tunneled catheters contribute significantly to their reduced infection risk, making them an effective choice for long-term central venous access.

The correct choice indicates that external tunneled catheters are associated with a lower risk of infection compared to other types of central venous access devices.

External tunneled catheters, such as Hickman or Broviac catheters, are designed with a mechanism that allows them to be positioned under the skin, creating a tunnel from the insertion site to a central vein. This tunneling provides an additional layer of protection against bacteria that may otherwise enter the body at the surface layer, significantly reducing the chance of infection compared to non-tunneled catheters, which are directly inserted into the vein and have a higher risk of skin flora contaminating the entry site.

Implanted ports also have a low infection risk, but they require a more complex procedure for access; thus, they don't offer practical long-term use in situations where frequent access is necessary. Peripheral IV lines, while they are less invasive, do not provide the same long-term access for central venous therapy and have a higher infection risk due to their placement and the nature of peripheral veins.

Overall, the design and placement technique of external tunneled catheters contribute significantly to their reduced infection risk, making them an effective choice for long-term central venous access.