Cargando…

SecurAstaP trial: securement with SecurAcath versus StatLock for peripherally inserted central catheters, a randomised open trial

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect on needed nursing time for dressing change. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: A parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled trial in patients who are in need for a peripherally inserted central catheter insertion in one teaching hospital in Belgium. The follow-up...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Goossens, Godelieve Alice, Grumiaux, Niel, Janssens, Christel, Jérôme, Martine, Fieuws, Steffen, Moons, Philip, Stas, Marguerite, Maleux, Geert
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5855473/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29478011
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016058
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect on needed nursing time for dressing change. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: A parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled trial in patients who are in need for a peripherally inserted central catheter insertion in one teaching hospital in Belgium. The follow-up lasted 180 days or until catheter removal, whatever came first. A computer generated table was used to allocate devices. Randomised patients were 105 adults (StatLock, n=53; SecurAcath, n=52) and primary analysis was based on all patients (n=92) with time measurements (StatLock, n=43; SecurAcath, n=49). INTERVENTIONS: StatLock which has to be changed weekly versus SecurAcath which could remain in place for the complete catheter dwell time. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Needed time for the dressing change at each dressing change (SecurAcath) or at each dressing change combined with the change of the securement device (StatLock). RESULTS: Median time needed for dressing change was 7.3 min (95% CI 6.4 min to 8.3 min) in the StatLock group and in the SecurAcath group 4.3 min (95% CI 3.8 min to 4.9 min) (P<0.0001). The time in the SecurAcath group was reduced with 41% (95% CI 29% to 51%). Incidence rates of migration, dislodgement and catheter-related bloodstream infection were comparable across groups. Pain scores were higher with SecurAcath than with StatLock at insertion (P=0.02) and at removal (P<0.001) and comparable during dressing change (P=0.38) and during dwell time (P=0.995). User-friendliness was scored at insertion and removal. All statements regarding the user-friendliness were scored significantly higher for StatLock than for SecurAcath (P<0.05). Only for the statement regarding the recommending routine use of the device, which was asked at removal, no difference was found between the two devices (P=0.32). CONCLUSION: Use of SecurAcath saves time during dressing change compared with StatLock. Training on correct placement and removal of SecurAcath is critical to minimise pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02311127; Pre-results.