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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |