背景：國內近年推動預防導管相關血流感染組合式照護，雖見感染率下降，但相較美國零感染的顯著成效及國內醫學中心每年仍有約1,700餘例的導管相關血流感染通報個案，我們應持續探究感染之危險因素，以利於推動有效改善策略。目的：探討住院病人中央靜脈導管相關血流感染之潛在危險因素，以及分析中央靜脈導管留置合理性和其對血流感染之影響。方法：本研究經倫理委員會審核通過；採回溯性個案對照研究法，以2014年3月1日至10月31日期間，年齡≥20歲及首次置放中央靜脈導管發生相關血流感染之病人為感染組，採1:2隨機抽樣同期間相同條件但無感染者當對照組。收集病人屬性與導管置放資訊，並依定義判讀感染或移除前48小時內是否合理留置導管。結果：住院病人首次置放之中央靜脈導管相關血流感染65人，抽樣非感染組130人。研究發現感染之顯著危險因素（p<.05）包括住加護病房、APACHE II（acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II）分數增加以及病人有糖尿病病史等因素；而中央靜脈導管不合理留置對感染之影響雖無統計顯著差異（勝算比2.41；95%信賴區間[0.65,8.91]），但不合理留置仍達10.8%。結論：建議護理人員照護高風險病人，務必提醒醫師審慎評估使用中央靜脈導管與正確執行各項無菌措施；評估無使用需求時提醒醫師即時移除。
Background: Despite recent efforts in Taiwan to reduce the risk and incidence of central venous catheter associated bloodstream infections (CABSI), the results as reported by the Taiwan Centers for Disease Control, when compared with the results achieved in the USA, indicate that Taiwan must promote the central venous catheter bundle approach more effectively. Furthermore, the risk factors for CABSI should be explored further in order to facilitate the development and implementation of effective related improvement strategies. Purpose: To explore the risk factors for CABSI after adjusting for confounding factors and to analyze the appropriate protocol for applying retained central venous catheters in hospitalized patients and the impact of CABSI. Methods: The ethics committee approved this retrospective case-control study. Hospitalized patients who were older than 20 years of age and were currently experiencing their first instance of CABSI were recruited between March 1, 2014 to October 31, 2014 as the case group. In addition, a control group was recruited in a 1:2 ratio from a random sample of patients listed in the medical order system who had received a central venous catheter but did not experience CABSI. Anyone who did not meet the above criteria was excluded. Data collected included basic demographic characteristics, basic catheter information, and the main reason for the catheter being in situ during the 48 hours prior to contracting CABSI or catheter removal. Results: A total of 65 patients with CABSI comprised the case group and 130 patients without CABSI comprised the control group. After controlling for potentially confounding factors using logistic regression analysis, the independent risk factors of CABSI (p < .05) were identified as: staying in the intensive care unit, having a high APACHE II (acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II) score, and having diabetes mellitus. Moreover, while having inappropriate central venous catheter in situ was found to not significantly influence CABSI (OR, 2.41; 95% CI [0.65–8.91]), we identified that about 10.8% of retained central venous catheter applications were unnecessary due to the lack of sufficient indications for use. Conclusion: We recommend that nursing staffs should remind physicians to evaluate carefully the need to use central venous catheters and should fully implement sterile protocols to protect the health of high-risk patients. In addition, nursing staffs should assess the central venous catheter daily and should remind physicians to remove the catheter as soon as possible in the absence of indications for use.