Cargando…

Catheter securement systems: comparison of two investigational devices to a sutureless securement device, a securement dressing, and sutures in a pig model

BACKGROUND: Catheter securement is critical for the success of infusion therapy and to prevent complications. Our purpose was to compare the strength of catheter securement achieved with two investigational adhesive securement devices to two securement products and also to sutures using an in vivo a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rutledge, Laura F., DeCabooter, Daniel P., Walters, Shelley-Ann H., Bernatchez, Stéphanie F.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4549365/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26307415
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40635-015-0060-3
_version_ 1782387311181299712
author Rutledge, Laura F.
DeCabooter, Daniel P.
Walters, Shelley-Ann H.
Bernatchez, Stéphanie F.
author_facet Rutledge, Laura F.
DeCabooter, Daniel P.
Walters, Shelley-Ann H.
Bernatchez, Stéphanie F.
author_sort Rutledge, Laura F.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Catheter securement is critical for the success of infusion therapy and to prevent complications. Our purpose was to compare the strength of catheter securement achieved with two investigational adhesive securement devices to two securement products and also to sutures using an in vivo animal model. METHODS: Twenty-five live pigs were prepared for aseptic abdominal surgery. Four central venous catheters were inserted per animal into the epigastric veins and secured with four of the five securement systems studied, following a balanced incomplete randomized block design. A peak axial pull force test method was used to measure the force required to dislodge the catheter 1 cm from the insertion site and/or cause failure of the device and/or dressing. This pull test was done 10 min after device application, per constraints of the animal model. Comparison analysis was carried out using a mixed effects model with pig, sample, and sample location as factors. Non-inferiority testing was carried out using 95 % confidence intervals with a margin of 4.52 N or 1 lb (454 g). Tukey’s method was used to adjust for multiple pairwise comparisons. RESULTS: Results showed that the two investigational devices displayed the highest mean peak axial pull forces (40–41 N) and were significantly better than sutures (28 N, p < 0.0001) and the securement dressing (17 N, p < 0.0001) and non-inferior to the securement device (37 N) in this test. The securement device required a higher mean peak axial pull force than sutures (p = 0.0007) and the securement dressing (p < 0.0001) for failure to occur. Finally, there was also a statistical difference between sutures and the securement dressing, with sutures requiring a higher mean peak axial pull force for catheter dislodgement than the securement dressing (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The two investigational devices appear to be a promising alternative for catheter securement, superior to sutures and the securement dressing, and non-inferior to the securement device.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4549365
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45493652015-08-27 Catheter securement systems: comparison of two investigational devices to a sutureless securement device, a securement dressing, and sutures in a pig model Rutledge, Laura F. DeCabooter, Daniel P. Walters, Shelley-Ann H. Bernatchez, Stéphanie F. Intensive Care Med Exp Methodology BACKGROUND: Catheter securement is critical for the success of infusion therapy and to prevent complications. Our purpose was to compare the strength of catheter securement achieved with two investigational adhesive securement devices to two securement products and also to sutures using an in vivo animal model. METHODS: Twenty-five live pigs were prepared for aseptic abdominal surgery. Four central venous catheters were inserted per animal into the epigastric veins and secured with four of the five securement systems studied, following a balanced incomplete randomized block design. A peak axial pull force test method was used to measure the force required to dislodge the catheter 1 cm from the insertion site and/or cause failure of the device and/or dressing. This pull test was done 10 min after device application, per constraints of the animal model. Comparison analysis was carried out using a mixed effects model with pig, sample, and sample location as factors. Non-inferiority testing was carried out using 95 % confidence intervals with a margin of 4.52 N or 1 lb (454 g). Tukey’s method was used to adjust for multiple pairwise comparisons. RESULTS: Results showed that the two investigational devices displayed the highest mean peak axial pull forces (40–41 N) and were significantly better than sutures (28 N, p < 0.0001) and the securement dressing (17 N, p < 0.0001) and non-inferior to the securement device (37 N) in this test. The securement device required a higher mean peak axial pull force than sutures (p = 0.0007) and the securement dressing (p < 0.0001) for failure to occur. Finally, there was also a statistical difference between sutures and the securement dressing, with sutures requiring a higher mean peak axial pull force for catheter dislodgement than the securement dressing (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The two investigational devices appear to be a promising alternative for catheter securement, superior to sutures and the securement dressing, and non-inferior to the securement device. Springer International Publishing 2015-08-27 /pmc/articles/PMC4549365/ /pubmed/26307415 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40635-015-0060-3 Text en © Rutledge et al. 2015 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Methodology
Rutledge, Laura F.
DeCabooter, Daniel P.
Walters, Shelley-Ann H.
Bernatchez, Stéphanie F.
Catheter securement systems: comparison of two investigational devices to a sutureless securement device, a securement dressing, and sutures in a pig model
title Catheter securement systems: comparison of two investigational devices to a sutureless securement device, a securement dressing, and sutures in a pig model
title_full Catheter securement systems: comparison of two investigational devices to a sutureless securement device, a securement dressing, and sutures in a pig model
title_fullStr Catheter securement systems: comparison of two investigational devices to a sutureless securement device, a securement dressing, and sutures in a pig model
title_full_unstemmed Catheter securement systems: comparison of two investigational devices to a sutureless securement device, a securement dressing, and sutures in a pig model
title_short Catheter securement systems: comparison of two investigational devices to a sutureless securement device, a securement dressing, and sutures in a pig model
title_sort catheter securement systems: comparison of two investigational devices to a sutureless securement device, a securement dressing, and sutures in a pig model
topic Methodology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4549365/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26307415
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40635-015-0060-3
work_keys_str_mv AT rutledgelauraf cathetersecurementsystemscomparisonoftwoinvestigationaldevicestoasuturelesssecurementdeviceasecurementdressingandsuturesinapigmodel
AT decabooterdanielp cathetersecurementsystemscomparisonoftwoinvestigationaldevicestoasuturelesssecurementdeviceasecurementdressingandsuturesinapigmodel
AT waltersshelleyannh cathetersecurementsystemscomparisonoftwoinvestigationaldevicestoasuturelesssecurementdeviceasecurementdressingandsuturesinapigmodel
AT bernatchezstephanief cathetersecurementsystemscomparisonoftwoinvestigationaldevicestoasuturelesssecurementdeviceasecurementdressingandsuturesinapigmodel