Cargando…

A clinical evaluation of two central venous catheter stabilization systems

BACKGROUND: Central venous catheters (CVCs) are commonly secured with sutures which are associated with microbial colonization and infection. We report a comparison of a suture-free system with standard sutures for securing short-term CVC in an international multicentre, prospective, randomized, non...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Karpanen, Tarja J., Casey, Anna L., Whitehouse, Tony, Timsit, Jean-Francois, Mimoz, Olivier, Palomar, Mercedes, Elliott, Tom S. J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6470223/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30997586
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13613-019-0519-6
_version_ 1783411753828220928
author Karpanen, Tarja J.
Casey, Anna L.
Whitehouse, Tony
Timsit, Jean-Francois
Mimoz, Olivier
Palomar, Mercedes
Elliott, Tom S. J.
author_facet Karpanen, Tarja J.
Casey, Anna L.
Whitehouse, Tony
Timsit, Jean-Francois
Mimoz, Olivier
Palomar, Mercedes
Elliott, Tom S. J.
author_sort Karpanen, Tarja J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Central venous catheters (CVCs) are commonly secured with sutures which are associated with microbial colonization and infection. We report a comparison of a suture-free system with standard sutures for securing short-term CVC in an international multicentre, prospective, randomized, non-blinded, observational feasibility study. Consented critical care patients who had a CVC inserted as part of their clinical management were randomized to receive either sutures or the suture-free system to secure their CVC. The main outcome measures were CVC migration (daily measurement of catheter movement) and unplanned catheter removals. RESULTS: The per cent of unplanned CVC removal in the two study groups was 2% (suture group 2 out of 86 patients) and 6% (suture-free group 5 out of 85 patients). Both securement methods were well tolerated in terms of skin irritation. The time and ease of application and removal of either securement systems were not rated significantly different. There was also no significant difference in CVC migration between the two securement systems in exploratory univariate and multivariate analyses. Overall, 42% (36 out of 86) of the CVC secured with sutures and 56% (48 out of 85) of the CVC secured with the suture-free securement system had CVC migration of ≥ 2 mm. CONCLUSIONS: The two securement systems performed similarly in terms of CVC migration and unplanned removal of CVC; however, the feasibility study was not powered to detect statistically significant differences in these two parameters. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN13939744. Registered 9 July 2015, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13939744.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6470223
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64702232019-05-03 A clinical evaluation of two central venous catheter stabilization systems Karpanen, Tarja J. Casey, Anna L. Whitehouse, Tony Timsit, Jean-Francois Mimoz, Olivier Palomar, Mercedes Elliott, Tom S. J. Ann Intensive Care Research BACKGROUND: Central venous catheters (CVCs) are commonly secured with sutures which are associated with microbial colonization and infection. We report a comparison of a suture-free system with standard sutures for securing short-term CVC in an international multicentre, prospective, randomized, non-blinded, observational feasibility study. Consented critical care patients who had a CVC inserted as part of their clinical management were randomized to receive either sutures or the suture-free system to secure their CVC. The main outcome measures were CVC migration (daily measurement of catheter movement) and unplanned catheter removals. RESULTS: The per cent of unplanned CVC removal in the two study groups was 2% (suture group 2 out of 86 patients) and 6% (suture-free group 5 out of 85 patients). Both securement methods were well tolerated in terms of skin irritation. The time and ease of application and removal of either securement systems were not rated significantly different. There was also no significant difference in CVC migration between the two securement systems in exploratory univariate and multivariate analyses. Overall, 42% (36 out of 86) of the CVC secured with sutures and 56% (48 out of 85) of the CVC secured with the suture-free securement system had CVC migration of ≥ 2 mm. CONCLUSIONS: The two securement systems performed similarly in terms of CVC migration and unplanned removal of CVC; however, the feasibility study was not powered to detect statistically significant differences in these two parameters. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN13939744. Registered 9 July 2015, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13939744. Springer International Publishing 2019-04-17 /pmc/articles/PMC6470223/ /pubmed/30997586 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13613-019-0519-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open AccessThis 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 Research
Karpanen, Tarja J.
Casey, Anna L.
Whitehouse, Tony
Timsit, Jean-Francois
Mimoz, Olivier
Palomar, Mercedes
Elliott, Tom S. J.
A clinical evaluation of two central venous catheter stabilization systems
title A clinical evaluation of two central venous catheter stabilization systems
title_full A clinical evaluation of two central venous catheter stabilization systems
title_fullStr A clinical evaluation of two central venous catheter stabilization systems
title_full_unstemmed A clinical evaluation of two central venous catheter stabilization systems
title_short A clinical evaluation of two central venous catheter stabilization systems
title_sort clinical evaluation of two central venous catheter stabilization systems
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6470223/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30997586
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13613-019-0519-6
work_keys_str_mv AT karpanentarjaj aclinicalevaluationoftwocentralvenouscatheterstabilizationsystems
AT caseyannal aclinicalevaluationoftwocentralvenouscatheterstabilizationsystems
AT whitehousetony aclinicalevaluationoftwocentralvenouscatheterstabilizationsystems
AT timsitjeanfrancois aclinicalevaluationoftwocentralvenouscatheterstabilizationsystems
AT mimozolivier aclinicalevaluationoftwocentralvenouscatheterstabilizationsystems
AT palomarmercedes aclinicalevaluationoftwocentralvenouscatheterstabilizationsystems
AT elliotttomsj aclinicalevaluationoftwocentralvenouscatheterstabilizationsystems
AT karpanentarjaj clinicalevaluationoftwocentralvenouscatheterstabilizationsystems
AT caseyannal clinicalevaluationoftwocentralvenouscatheterstabilizationsystems
AT whitehousetony clinicalevaluationoftwocentralvenouscatheterstabilizationsystems
AT timsitjeanfrancois clinicalevaluationoftwocentralvenouscatheterstabilizationsystems
AT mimozolivier clinicalevaluationoftwocentralvenouscatheterstabilizationsystems
AT palomarmercedes clinicalevaluationoftwocentralvenouscatheterstabilizationsystems
AT elliotttomsj clinicalevaluationoftwocentralvenouscatheterstabilizationsystems