Cargando…
Securing All intraVenous devices Effectively in hospitalised patients—the SAVE trial: study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial
INTRODUCTION: Over 70% of all hospital admissions have a peripheral intravenous device (PIV) inserted; however, the failure rate of PIVs is unacceptably high, with up to 69% of these devices failing before treatment is complete. Failure can be due to dislodgement, phlebitis, occlusion/infiltration a...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4593168/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26399574 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008689 |
_version_ | 1782393285811109888 |
---|---|
author | Rickard, Claire M Marsh, Nicole Webster, Joan Playford, E Geoffrey McGrail, Matthew R Larsen, Emily Keogh, Samantha McMillan, David Whitty, Jennifer A Choudhury, Md Abu Dunster, Kimble R Reynolds, Heather Marshall, Andrea Crilly, Julia Young, Jeanine Thom, Ogilvie Gowardman, John Corley, Amanda Fraser, John F |
author_facet | Rickard, Claire M Marsh, Nicole Webster, Joan Playford, E Geoffrey McGrail, Matthew R Larsen, Emily Keogh, Samantha McMillan, David Whitty, Jennifer A Choudhury, Md Abu Dunster, Kimble R Reynolds, Heather Marshall, Andrea Crilly, Julia Young, Jeanine Thom, Ogilvie Gowardman, John Corley, Amanda Fraser, John F |
author_sort | Rickard, Claire M |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Over 70% of all hospital admissions have a peripheral intravenous device (PIV) inserted; however, the failure rate of PIVs is unacceptably high, with up to 69% of these devices failing before treatment is complete. Failure can be due to dislodgement, phlebitis, occlusion/infiltration and/or infection. This results in interrupted medical therapy; painful phlebitis and reinsertions; increased hospital length of stay, morbidity and mortality from infections; and wasted medical/nursing time. Appropriate PIV dressing and securement may prevent many cases of PIV failure, but little comparative data exist regarding the efficacy of various PIV dressing and securement methods. This trial will investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of 4 methods of PIV dressing and securement in preventing PIV failure. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, parallel group, superiority randomised controlled trial with 4 arms, 3 experimental groups (tissue adhesive, bordered polyurethane dressing, sutureless securement device) and 1 control (standard polyurethane dressing) is planned. There will be a 3-year recruitment of 1708 adult patients, with allocation concealment until randomisation by a centralised web-based service. The primary outcome is PIV failure which includes any of: dislodgement, occlusion/infiltration, phlebitis and infection. Secondary outcomes include: types of PIV failure, PIV dwell time, costs, device colonisation, skin colonisation, patient and staff satisfaction. Relative incidence rates of device failure per 100 devices and per 1000 device days with 95% CIs will summarise the impact of each dressing, and test differences between groups. Kaplan-Meier survival curves (with log-rank Mantel-Cox test) will compare device failure over time. p Values of <0.05 will be considered significant. Secondary end points will be compared between groups using parametric or non-parametric techniques appropriate to level of measurement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been received from Queensland Health (HREC/11/QRCH/152) and Griffith University (NRS/46/11/HREC). Results will be published according to the CONSORT statement and presented at relevant conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN); 12611000769987. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4593168 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-45931682015-10-08 Securing All intraVenous devices Effectively in hospitalised patients—the SAVE trial: study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial Rickard, Claire M Marsh, Nicole Webster, Joan Playford, E Geoffrey McGrail, Matthew R Larsen, Emily Keogh, Samantha McMillan, David Whitty, Jennifer A Choudhury, Md Abu Dunster, Kimble R Reynolds, Heather Marshall, Andrea Crilly, Julia Young, Jeanine Thom, Ogilvie Gowardman, John Corley, Amanda Fraser, John F BMJ Open Evidence Based Practice INTRODUCTION: Over 70% of all hospital admissions have a peripheral intravenous device (PIV) inserted; however, the failure rate of PIVs is unacceptably high, with up to 69% of these devices failing before treatment is complete. Failure can be due to dislodgement, phlebitis, occlusion/infiltration and/or infection. This results in interrupted medical therapy; painful phlebitis and reinsertions; increased hospital length of stay, morbidity and mortality from infections; and wasted medical/nursing time. Appropriate PIV dressing and securement may prevent many cases of PIV failure, but little comparative data exist regarding the efficacy of various PIV dressing and securement methods. This trial will investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of 4 methods of PIV dressing and securement in preventing PIV failure. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, parallel group, superiority randomised controlled trial with 4 arms, 3 experimental groups (tissue adhesive, bordered polyurethane dressing, sutureless securement device) and 1 control (standard polyurethane dressing) is planned. There will be a 3-year recruitment of 1708 adult patients, with allocation concealment until randomisation by a centralised web-based service. The primary outcome is PIV failure which includes any of: dislodgement, occlusion/infiltration, phlebitis and infection. Secondary outcomes include: types of PIV failure, PIV dwell time, costs, device colonisation, skin colonisation, patient and staff satisfaction. Relative incidence rates of device failure per 100 devices and per 1000 device days with 95% CIs will summarise the impact of each dressing, and test differences between groups. Kaplan-Meier survival curves (with log-rank Mantel-Cox test) will compare device failure over time. p Values of <0.05 will be considered significant. Secondary end points will be compared between groups using parametric or non-parametric techniques appropriate to level of measurement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been received from Queensland Health (HREC/11/QRCH/152) and Griffith University (NRS/46/11/HREC). Results will be published according to the CONSORT statement and presented at relevant conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN); 12611000769987. BMJ Publishing Group 2015-09-15 /pmc/articles/PMC4593168/ /pubmed/26399574 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008689 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Evidence Based Practice Rickard, Claire M Marsh, Nicole Webster, Joan Playford, E Geoffrey McGrail, Matthew R Larsen, Emily Keogh, Samantha McMillan, David Whitty, Jennifer A Choudhury, Md Abu Dunster, Kimble R Reynolds, Heather Marshall, Andrea Crilly, Julia Young, Jeanine Thom, Ogilvie Gowardman, John Corley, Amanda Fraser, John F Securing All intraVenous devices Effectively in hospitalised patients—the SAVE trial: study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial |
title | Securing All intraVenous devices Effectively in hospitalised patients—the SAVE trial: study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial |
title_full | Securing All intraVenous devices Effectively in hospitalised patients—the SAVE trial: study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial |
title_fullStr | Securing All intraVenous devices Effectively in hospitalised patients—the SAVE trial: study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Securing All intraVenous devices Effectively in hospitalised patients—the SAVE trial: study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial |
title_short | Securing All intraVenous devices Effectively in hospitalised patients—the SAVE trial: study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial |
title_sort | securing all intravenous devices effectively in hospitalised patients—the save trial: study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial |
topic | Evidence Based Practice |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4593168/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26399574 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008689 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT rickardclairem securingallintravenousdeviceseffectivelyinhospitalisedpatientsthesavetrialstudyprotocolforamulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT marshnicole securingallintravenousdeviceseffectivelyinhospitalisedpatientsthesavetrialstudyprotocolforamulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT websterjoan securingallintravenousdeviceseffectivelyinhospitalisedpatientsthesavetrialstudyprotocolforamulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT playfordegeoffrey securingallintravenousdeviceseffectivelyinhospitalisedpatientsthesavetrialstudyprotocolforamulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT mcgrailmatthewr securingallintravenousdeviceseffectivelyinhospitalisedpatientsthesavetrialstudyprotocolforamulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT larsenemily securingallintravenousdeviceseffectivelyinhospitalisedpatientsthesavetrialstudyprotocolforamulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT keoghsamantha securingallintravenousdeviceseffectivelyinhospitalisedpatientsthesavetrialstudyprotocolforamulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT mcmillandavid securingallintravenousdeviceseffectivelyinhospitalisedpatientsthesavetrialstudyprotocolforamulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT whittyjennifera securingallintravenousdeviceseffectivelyinhospitalisedpatientsthesavetrialstudyprotocolforamulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT choudhurymdabu securingallintravenousdeviceseffectivelyinhospitalisedpatientsthesavetrialstudyprotocolforamulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT dunsterkimbler securingallintravenousdeviceseffectivelyinhospitalisedpatientsthesavetrialstudyprotocolforamulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT reynoldsheather securingallintravenousdeviceseffectivelyinhospitalisedpatientsthesavetrialstudyprotocolforamulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT marshallandrea securingallintravenousdeviceseffectivelyinhospitalisedpatientsthesavetrialstudyprotocolforamulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT crillyjulia securingallintravenousdeviceseffectivelyinhospitalisedpatientsthesavetrialstudyprotocolforamulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT youngjeanine securingallintravenousdeviceseffectivelyinhospitalisedpatientsthesavetrialstudyprotocolforamulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT thomogilvie securingallintravenousdeviceseffectivelyinhospitalisedpatientsthesavetrialstudyprotocolforamulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT gowardmanjohn securingallintravenousdeviceseffectivelyinhospitalisedpatientsthesavetrialstudyprotocolforamulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT corleyamanda securingallintravenousdeviceseffectivelyinhospitalisedpatientsthesavetrialstudyprotocolforamulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT fraserjohnf securingallintravenousdeviceseffectivelyinhospitalisedpatientsthesavetrialstudyprotocolforamulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial |