Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 804

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Comparison of Two Antimicrobial-Impregnated Central Venous Catheters

Open access
Darouiche, Rabih O., Raad, Issam I., Heard, Stephen O., Thornby, John I., Wenker, Olivier C., Gabrielli, Andrea, Berg, Johannes, Khardori, Nancy, Hanna, Hend, Hachem, Ray, Harris, Richard L., Mayhall, Glen·1999·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The use of central venous catheters impregnated with either minocycline and rifampin or chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine reduces the rates of catheter colonization and catheter-related bloodstream infection as compared with the use of unimpregnated catheters. We compared the rates of catheter colonization and catheter-related bloodstream infection associated with these two kinds of antiinfective catheters. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized clinical trial in 12 university-affiliated hospitals. High-risk adult patients in whom central venous catheters were expected to remain in place for three or more days were randomly assigned to undergo insertion of polyurethane, triple-lumen catheters impregnated with either minocycline and rifampin (on both the luminal and external surfaces) or chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine (on only the external surface). After their removal, the tips and subcutaneous segments of the catheters were cultured by both the roll-plate and the sonication methods. Peripheral-blood cultures were obtained if clinically indicated. RESULTS: Of 865 catheters inserted, 738 (85 percent) produced culture results that could be evaluated. The clinical characteristics of the patients and the risk factors for infection were similar in the two groups. Catheters impregnated with minocycline and rifampin were 1/3 as likely to be colonized as catheters impregnated with chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine (28 of 356 catheters [7.9 percent] vs. 87 of 382 [22.8 percent], P<0.001), and catheter-related bloodstream infection was 1/12 as likely in catheters impregnated with minocycline and rifampin (1 of 356 [0.3 percent], vs. 13 of 382 [3.4 percent] for those impregnated with chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine; P<0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The use of central venous catheters impregnated with minocycline and rifampin is associated with a lower rate of infection than the use of catheters impregnated with chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejm199901073400101

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 16 references

Cited by

See all 804

Metadata

Authors
Darouiche, R. O., Raad, I. I., Heard, S. O., Thornby, J. I., Wenker, O. C., Gabrielli, A., Berg, J., Khardori, N., Hanna, H., Hachem, R., Harris, R. L., & Mayhall, G.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1999-01-07
Volume
340
Issue
1
Pages
1-8
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2325546012
Cited by
804
References
16
FWCI
102.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Comparison of Two Antimicrobial-Impregnated Central Venous Catheters. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199901073400101
The paper
Darouiche, R. O., Raad, I. I., Heard, S. O., Thornby, J. I., Wenker, O. C., Gabrielli, A., Berg, J., Khardori, N., Hanna, H., Hachem, R., Harris, R. L., & Mayhall, G. (1999). A Comparison of Two Antimicrobial-Impregnated Central Venous Catheters. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199901073400101

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.