International Journal of Nephrology

Volume 2014 (2014), Article ID 629459, 6 pages

http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/629459

Clinical Study

Antibiogram for Haemodialysis Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections

Abdul Halim Abdul Gafor,¹ Pau Cheong Ping,² Anis Farahanum Zainal Abidin,² Muhammad Zulhilmie Saruddin,² Ng Kah Yan,² Siti Qania’ah Adam,² Ramliza Ramli,² Anita Sulong,² and Petrick Periyasamy²

¹Nephrology Unit, Department of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre, Jalan Yaacob Latif, Bandar Tun Razak, Cheras, 56000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

²Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre, Jalan Yaacob Latif, Bandar Tun Razak, Cheras, 56000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Received 12 September 2013; Revised 6 November 2013; Accepted 18 November 2013; Published 22 January 2014

Academic Editor: Jaime Uribarri

Copyright © 2014 Abdul Halim Abdul Gafor et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

Background. Haemodialysis (HD) catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) are a major complication of long-term catheter use in HD. This study identified the epidemiology of HD CRBSIs and to aid in the choice of empiric antibiotics therapy given to patients with HD CRBSIs. Methods. Patients with HD CRBSIs were identified. Their blood cultures were performed according to standard sterile technique. Specimens were sent to the microbiology lab for culture and sensitivity testing. Results were tabulated in antibiograms. Results. 18 patients with a median age of 61.0 years (IQR: 51.5–73.25) were confirmed to have HD CRBSIs based on our study criteria. Eight (44.4%) patients had gram-negative infections, 7 (38.9%) patients gram-positive infections, and 3 (16.7%) patients had polymicrobial infections. We noted that most of the gram-negative bacteria were sensitive to ceftazidime. Unfortunately, cloxacillin resistance was high among gram-positive organisms. Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus and Bacillus sp. were the most common gram-positive organisms and they were sensitive to vancomycin. Conclusion. Our study revealed the increased incidence of gram-negative organism in HD CRBSIs. Antibiogram is an important tool in deciding empirical antibiotics for HD CRBSIs. Tailoring your antibiotics accordingly to the antibiogram can increase the chance of successful treatment and prevent the emergence of bacterial resistance.

1. Introduction

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major public health burden [1]. The contribution of CKD to the global burden of disease may be underestimated due to the lack of significant importance in certain kidney disease classifications and failure to realize the relationship of CKD with cardiovascular disease [1]. The prevalence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is increasing exponentially worldwide. USA, Japan, and Taiwan had the highest rate of prevalence of ESRD [2]. In Malaysia, dialysis is the main modality of renal replacement therapy. There were about 26,000 patients on dialysis in 2011 with the prevalence of 900 per million populations [3]. Haemodialysis (HD) accounts for about 89% of dialysis patients and most of them were accepted to centre HD [4]. Unfortunately, not all patients enter HD program with a native vascular access. Many patients still presented late and HD access catheter, either cuffed or noncuffed catheters, is needed to perform HD. The use of HD catheter had increased from 3% in 2002 to 8.1% in 2011 of all vascular accesses [5].

We cannot argue that HD catheter plays a very important role in the treatment of patients requiring HD. It is relatively easy to be inserted and can be used immediately in wide range of kidney failure patients. Unfortunately, HD catheter is not without problems. Beside thrombosis, infection is one of the most feared complications. Infection of the HD catheter was thought to cause an increase of >50% mortality in HD patients compared to patients on native fistulas and also cause significant morbidity in dialysis population [6]. The cause of HD catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) is multifactorial ranging from patient’s factors (i.e., comorbidities and hygiene) to catheter’s factors (i.e., types of catheter and sites of insertion) [7].

Currently, the management of HD CRBSIs depends on the type of catheter involved and the severity of the infections. Antibiotics are the mainstay for the treatment of HD CRBSIs. Sometimes, the HD catheters would need to be replaced in complicated cases. It is important to initiate empirical antibiotic therapy before we receive the formal microbial reports. These empirical antibiotics should cover the gram-positive and gram-negative organisms. Each HD centre should maintain a database of all suspected and proven HD CRBSIs, with details on the causative organisms, their sensitivity to antibiotics, and the outcomes of therapeutic intervention. Moreover, each unit should know the epidemiology of its catheter-related infections [7].

Antibiogram is a list of antimicrobial susceptibilities of local bacteria isolated and produced by clinical microbiology laboratory. It has often been used by clinician to assess local susceptibility rates and select empirical therapy [8]. Each HD unit must have its own antibiogram to assist the nephrologist to choose empirical antibiotic for HD CRBSIs.

2. Methods

This study was approved by our hospital ethics and research committee (FF-006-2012). The study was conducted over 6 months in Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre (UKMMC). It was a cross-sectional study which included ESRD patients with the diagnosis of HD CRBSIs. The diagnosis was made based on the clinical presentation of fever, chills and/or hypotension, and semiquantitative laboratory confirmation, when blood from the catheter demonstrates microbial growth at least 2 hours earlier than growth is detected in blood collected simultaneously from a peripheral vein [9, 10]. HD patients who presented with other source of infection were excluded from the study.

Consents were taken from the patients and demographic data were taken via interviews and reviews of patient’s case files. Two sets of blood cultures were taken from each patient. One set of blood culture (anaerobic and aerobic) was taken from a peripheral vein and another set from the catheter. The peripheral blood culture was taken from a vein in the median cubital fossa or the flexor aspect of the forearm. A sterile zone was then demarcated by draping the area with a sterile sheet. The sterile zone was created by cleaning the area with 70% alcohol followed by 10% povidone-iodine in a circular motion starting from the centre and moving outwards, and the site was left to dry. Blood was taken from the catheter in a similar fashion. The catheter hub was then cleaned with 10% povidone-iodine and left to dry. An equal amount of blood was drawn for catheter and peripheral cultures. All operators wore plastic gowns, face masks, and sterile gloves to prevent contamination of the blood culture.

The blood cultures were then sent to our microbiology laboratory for culture and antibiotic sensitivity tests. All cultures isolated were tested using Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) 2011 protocol.

3. Results

During the 6-month study period, 28 cases with suspected HD CRBSIs and positive blood cultures were identified. Nine cases were due to line colonization with no systemic infection and one case of bloodstream infection with an unknown primary source.

Eighteen patients with a median age of 61.0 years (IQR: 51.5–73.25) were confirmed to have HD CRBSIs based on our study criteria. Their baseline characteristic, isolated bacteria, and catheter outcome were tabulated in Table 1. Out of them, 8 (44.4%) patients had gram-negative infections, 7 (38.9%) patients had gram-positive infections and 3 (16.7%) patients had polymicrobial infections (Table 2).

Table 1: Baseline characteristics, bacterial isolated, and catheter outcome.

Patients’ initials
Age (years)
Gender
Catheter type/site
Comorbidities
Bacteria isolated
Catheter outcome

AR
55
Male
Cuffed

right IJV
DM/HPT
Bacillus sp.
Removed

AA
61
Male
Noncuffed

right IJV
HPT
Stenotrophomonas sp.

Citrobacter sp.
Removed

FFY
85
Female
Noncuffed

right IJV
DM/HPT
MSSA

Bacillus sp.
Removed

FSW
29
Female
Cuffed

right IJV
DM/HPT
Pseudomonas sp.
Salvaged

HMJ
83
Male
Cuffed

left IJV
DM/HPT
Flavobacterium sp.
Removed

LHS
61
Male
Noncuffed

right IJV
HPT
CONS
Removed

MY
32
Male
Noncuffed

right FV
HPT
Morganella sp.
Removed

MAMA
60
Male
Cuffed

right IJV
DM/HPT
Pseudomonas sp.
Removed

MAK
73
Male
Cuffed

right IJV
DM/HPT
Stenotrophomonas sp.
Salvaged

MNO
52
Male
Noncuffed

right IJV
DM/HPT
CONS
Removed

OKK
61
Male
Noncuffed

right IJV
DM/HPT
MRSA
Removed

OTS
75
Male
Cuffed

left IJV
DM/HPT
Serratia sp.
Salvaged

PM
62
Male
Cuffed

right IJV
DM/HPT
Enterobacter sp.
Removed

PI
68
Female
Noncuffed

right IJV
DM
Enterobacter sp.
Removed

SA
40
Female
Cuffed

left IJV
HPT
Bacillus sp.

Stenotrophomonas sp.
Removed

WKY
74
Male
Cuffed

right IJV
HPT
MSSA
Removed

YI
72
Male
Noncuffed

right IJV
DM/HPT
CONS
Removed

YSP
50
Female
Cuffed

right IJV
HPT
Enterobacter sp.
Removed

IJV: internal jugular vein; FV: femoral vein; DM: diabetes mellitus; HPT: hypertension; methicillin sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA); methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA); coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (CONS).

Table 2: Bacterial isolates from 18 blood cultures.

Count (%)

Gram-positive organisms

    Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (CONS)
3 (14.3)

    Bacillus sp.
3 (14.3)

    Methicillin sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA)
2 (9.52)

    Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)
1 (4.76)

    Enterococcus sp.
1 (4.76)

    Total
10 (47.6)

Gram-negative organisms

    Stenotrophomonas sp.
3 (14.3)

    Pseudomonas sp.
2 (9.52)

    Enterobacter sp.
2 (9.52)

    Citrobacter sp.
1 (4.76)

    Flavobacterium sp.
1 (4.76)

    Morganella sp.
1 (4.76)

    Serratia sp.
1 (4.76)

    Total
11 (52.4)

Total for all organisms
21 (100)

The median ESRD duration was 12 months (IQR: 6.50–39.0). Most of the patients (55.6%) were recently diagnosed with ESRD and started dialysis within the last 12 months. Figure 1 shows the distribution of the catheter duration in the group of patients. The median catheter duration was 3 months (IQR: 1.00–5.00). The figure also showed the pattern of infection, where most cases (77.8%) happen within the first 6 months of catheter insertion.

Figure 1: Haemodialysis catheter duration at the time of infection.

The catheter was salvaged in 3 cases. All the cases where the line was salvaged were cuffed catheters.

Tables 3 and 4 were the antibiograms of gram-positive and gram-negative bacterial sensitivity testing. Each column represents the species of bacteria tested and the total number of bacteria isolated. The rows represent the different types of antibiotics tested for. Each bacteria-antibiotic combination was represented by the percentage of organisms sensitive to its antibiotic. Not all the bacteria isolated were tested for the same panel of antibiotics, as some bacteria were tested with antibiotics upon special request. The number of organisms tested was represented on the antibiogram as the number in parenthesis. Only vancomycin and linezolid were fully efficacious against gram-positive bacteria from the antibiogram. Cloxacillin was only effective against 40% of gram-positive bacteria. Cefepime was the most effective antibiotic with 100% sensitivity against gram-negative organisms tested. This was followed by amikacin, ceftazidime, and piperacillin-tazobactam which were effective towards 90% of gram-negative organisms tested.

Table 3: Antibiogram for gram-positive bacteria.

Bacteria
Bacillus sp.
CONS
MSSA
MRSA
Enterococcus sp.

Number of isolates
3
3
2
1
1

Percentage (%)

Amikacin
100 (3)

Ciprofloxacin

33.3 (3)
50 (2)
0 (1)

Clindamycin

33.3 (3)
50 (2)
0 (1)

Doxycycline

66.7 (3)
50 (2)
100 (1)

Erythromycin

33.3 (3)
50 (2)
0 (1)

Fusidic acid

33 (3)
50 (2)
100 (1)

Gentamicin

100 (3)
100 (2)
0 (1)
0 (1)

Imipenem

Linezolid

100 (3)
100 (2)
100 (1)
100 (1)

Mupirocin

66.7 (3)
100 (2)
0 (1)

Netilmicin
100 (3)

Cloxacillin

0 (2)
100 (2)
0 (1)

Penicillin G

0 (3)
50 (2)
0 (1)
100 (1)

Piperacillin-tazobactam
33.3 (3)

100 (1)

Rifampicin

100 (3)
100 (2)
0 (1)

Teicoplanin
100 (1)
100 (3)
50 (2)
100 (1)
100 (1)

Tetracycline
100 (2)

Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole

33.3 (3)
100 (2)
0 (1)

Vancomycin
100 (3)
100 (1)
100 (1)

100 (1)

 *Number in parenthesis is the number of isolates tested for that particular bacteria-antibiotic combination.

Table 4: Antibiogram for gram-negative bacteria.

Bacteria
Citrobacter freundii
Enterobacter cloacae
Flavobacterium sp.
Morganella morganii
Pseudomonas sp.
Serratia sp.
Stenotrophomonas maltophilia

Number of isolates
1
2
1
1
2
1
3

Percentage (%)

Amikacin
100 (1)
100 (2)

100 (1)
50 (2)
100 (1)
100 (3)

Augmentin
0 (1)
0 (2)

0 (1)
0 (1)
0 (1)
0 (1)

Cefepime
100 (1)
100 (2)

100 (1)
100 (2)
100 (1)
100 (3)

Cefotaxime
100 (1)
100 (2)

0 (1)
0 (1)
100 (1)
0 (1)

Ceftazidime
100 (1)
100 (2)

100 (1)
50 (2)
100 (1)
100 (3)

Ciprofloxacin
100 (1)
100 (2)
100 (1)
0 (1)
100 (2)
100 (1)
66.7 (3)

Doxycycline

Erythromycin

0 (1)

Gentamicin
100 (1)
100 (2)

100 (1)
50 (2)
100 (1)
66.7 (3)

Imipenem
100 (1)
100 (2)
0 (1)
0 (1)
50 (2)
100 (1)
0 (3)

Meropenem
100 (1)
100 (2)

100 (1)
100 (2)
100 (1)
0 (3)

Piperacillin-tazobactam
100 (1)
100 (2)

100 (1)
50 (2)
100 (1)
100 (3)

Polymyxin B

0

100 (3)

Rifampicin

100 (1)

Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole

0 (1)
0 (1)
100 (2)

100 (3)

Vancomycin

100 (1)

 *Number in parenthesis is the number of isolates tested for that particular bacteria-antibiotic combination.

4. Discussion

This study identified the epidemiology of HD CRBSIs in UKMMC. Most of our patients were diabetic and hypertensive and in concordance with the national HD patients’ profiles [4]. A previous study by Jean et al. had shown that HD CRBSIs were more common in patients with diabetes mellitus [11]. This relationship is rather obvious as we know diabetic patients are more predisposed to develop infections due to their suppressed immunological state.

Qasaimeh et al. had shown that the causative organisms in HD CRBSIs were predominantly gram-positive cocci, followed by gram-negative bacilli, and polymicrobial infections [12]. In another study by Saad eon tunneled, cuffed, and permanent catheters showed that 45 out of 86 infections (52.3%) were caused by single gram-positive cocci. In that study, 23 infections (26.7%) were caused by single gram-negative rods only while 18 (20.9%) were polymicrobial [13]. According to a study by Schwab and Beathard, 84.5%, 33.3%, and 1.6% were caused by gram-positive cocci, gram-negative organisms, and acid-fast organisms, respectively. The most commonly reported isolate in these cases of catheter-related bacteraemia was Staphylococcus aureus [14]. Nasal carrier of Staphylococcus aureus is an important risk factor for HD CRBSIs, not only for gram-positive infections but also for gram-negatives and polymicrobial infections [11]. Thus, screening patients for carrier status is important and must be a routine procedure before accepting a patient into the HD program.

Our study was unusual as a high prevalence of gram-negative bacteraemia was found in HD patients. As compared to previous studies, our study showed an increasing trend of gram-negative bacteraemia. Alexandraki et al. investigated the five-year pattern of microbial isolated from HD patients with catheter infection, which showed a significant increase in the incidence of single gram-negative organisms and polymicrobial bacteraemias [15]. This trend was consistent with the trend of catheter infection in nondialysis patients [16, 17]. The high prevalence of gram-negative bacteria may be due to immunocompromised state of patients [16, 17], contaminated infusate [18], and misuse of antibiotics [19]. Thus, empirical antibiotic therapy for HD CRBSIs should include coverage for gram-negative organism and Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in neutropenic patients [20].

Antibiogram is a list of laboratory testing for the sensitivity of an isolated bacterial strain to different antibiotics. In an era of bacterial resistance, a careful and correct selection of antibiotics is important to increase the chance of successful treatment and to reduce the rate of bacterial resistance. Antibiograms are often used by doctors to assess local susceptibility rates, to select empiric antibiotic therapy, and to monitor resistance trends within an institution [21]. Antibiograms are also used to compare susceptibility rates amongst institutions and bacterial resistance trends in the country [22]. Thus, antibiogram should be incorporated into the antibiotics assessment in each institution. Currently, antibiograms are only available in the larger hospitals with microbiology laboratory service. As the trend of bacterial resistance changes, antibiogram has to be reviewed regularly in timely manner.

Prior to this study, the empirical antibiotics for HD CRBSIs in our centre were intravenous cloxacillin and ceftazidime [23]. Based on this study, we noted that most of the gram-negative bacteria were sensitive to ceftazidime. Unfortunately, cloxacillin resistance was high among gram-positive organisms. We also realized that Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus and bacillus sp. were the most common gram-positive organisms and they were sensitive to vancomycin. Thus, following this study results, empirical antibiotics for HD CRBSIs in our centre were switched to intravenous vancomycin and ceftazidime.

5. Conclusion

Our study revealed the increased incidence of gram-negative organism in HD CRBSIs. We noted that antibiogram is an important tool in helping us to choose empirical antibiotics for HD CRBSIs. Tailoring your antibiotics accordingly to the antibiogram can increase the chance of successful treatment and prevent the emergence of bacterial resistance. Hence, we strongly urge each institution to have their own antibiogram in the management of HD CRBSIs. To provide a better representation of national infection patterns, data from multicenter studies could be incorporated. A yearly antibiogram will help to keep track of antibiotic resistance and also update the empirical antibiotic regime.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, for allowing them to publish these data.

References

A. Schieppati and G. Remuzzi, “Chronic renal diseases as a public health problem: epidemiology, social, and economic implications,” Kidney International, Supplement, vol. 68, supplement 98, pp. S7–S10, 2005.

U S Renal Data System, “USRDS 2012 Annual Data Report: Atlas of Chronic Kidney Disease and End-Stage Renal Disease in the United States,” National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, Md, USA, vol. 2, no. 12, pp. 348, 2012

Y. N. Lim, L. M. Ong, B. L. Goh, and D. G. Lee, “Nineteen report of Malaysian Dialysis and Transplantation Registry 202: all renal replacement therapy in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur,” The National Renal Registry, vol. 1, pp. 1–3, 2012.

Y. N. Lim, L. M. Ong, A. Ghazali, and D. G. Lee, “Nineteen report of Malaysian Dialysis and Transplantation Registry 2012: dialysis in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur,” The National Renal Registry, vol. 2, pp. 5–31, 2012.

C. C. Tan, S. F. K. Shahnaz, A. Rafidah, and Z. S. Norleen, “Nineteen Report of Malaysian Dialysis and Transplantation Registry 2012: haemodialysis practises. Kuala Lumpur,” The National Renal Registry, vol. 11, pp. 140–160, 2012.

B. C. Astor, J. A. Eustace, N. R. Powe, M. J. Klag, N. E. Fink, and J. Coresh, “Type of vascular access and survival among incident hemodialysis patients: the choices for healthy outcomes in caring for ESRD (CHOICE) Study,” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 1449–1455, 2005.

R. Vanholder, B. Canaud, R. Fluck et al., “Diagnosis, prevention and treatment of haemodialysis catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI): a position statement of European Renal Best Practice (ERBP),” NDT Plus, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 234–246, 2010.

S. Joshi, “Hospital antibiogram: a necessity,” Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 277–280, 2010.

E. Bouza, N. Alvarado, L. Alcalá, M. J. Pérez, C. Rincón, and P. Muñoz, “A randomized and prospective study of 3 procedures for the diagnosis of catheter-related bloodstream infection without catheter withdrawal,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 820–826, 2007.

R. Vanholder, B. Canaud, R. Fluck et al., “Diagnosis, prevention and treatment of haemodialysis catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI): a position statement of European Renal Best Practice (ERBP),” NDT Plus, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 234–246, 2010.

G. Jean, B. Charra, C. Chazot et al., “Risk factor analysis for long-term tunneled dialysis catheter-related bacteremias,” Nephron, vol. 91, no. 3, pp. 399–405, 2002.

G. R. Qasaimeh, S. E. Qaderi, G. A. Omari, and M. A. Badadweh, “Vascular access infection among hemodialysis patients in northern Jordan: incidence and risk factors,” Southern Medical Journal, vol. 101, no. 5, pp. 508–512, 2008.

T. F. Saad, “Bacteremia associated with tunneled, cuffed hemodialysis catheters,” American Journal of Kidney Diseases, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 1114–1124, 1999.

S. J. Schwab and G. Beathard, “The hemodialysis catheter conundrum: hate living with them, but can't live without them,” Kidney International, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 1999.

I. Alexandraki, R. Sullivan, R. Zaiden et al., “Blood culture isolates in hemodialysis vascular catheter-related bacteremia,” American Journal of the Medical Sciences, vol. 336, no. 4, pp. 297–302, 2008.

E. Velasco, R. Byington, C. S. A. Martins, M. Schirmer, L. C. M. Dias, and V. M. S. C. Gonçalves, “Bloodstream infection surveillance in a cancer centre: a prospective look at clinical microbiology aspects,” Clinical Microbiology and Infection, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 542–549, 2004.

E. Velasco, R. Byington, C. A. S. Martins, M. Schirmer, L. M. C. Dias, and V. M. S. C. Gonçalves, “Comparative study of clinical characteristics of neutropenic and non-neutropenic adult cancer patients with bloodstream infections,” European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2006.

D. Maki and L. A. Mermel, “Infections due to infusion therapy,” in Hospital Infections, J. Bennett and P. Brachman, Eds., pp. 689–724, Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia, Pa, USA, 1998.

I. B. Alexandraki and D. T. Plott, “Hemodialysis vascular catheter-related bacteremia: five year epidemiologic shift in organism isolates,” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 16, p. 435A, 2005.

J. L. Nouwen, J. J. Wielenga, H. van Overhagen et al., “Hickman catheter-related infections in neutropenic patients: insertion in the operating theater versus insertion in the radiology suite,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 1304–1311, 1999.

M. K. Lacy, N. E. Klutman, R. T. Horvat, and A. Zapantis, “Antibiograms: new NCCLS guidelines, development, and clinical application,” Hospital Pharmacy, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 542–553, 2004.

A. Zapantis, M. K. Lacy, R. T. Horvat et al., “Nationwide antibiogram analysis using NCCLS M39-A guidelines,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 2629–2634, 2005.

A. H. Abdul Gafor and P. Petrick, PPUKM Antibiotic Guideline 2008: Clinical Approach to Empirical Choice of Antimicrobial Therapy: IV Line Infection, Percetakan Nasional Malaysia Berhad, 2008.