These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A pilot trial of bordered polyurethane dressings, tissue adhesive and sutureless devices compared with standard polyurethane dressings for securing short-term arterial catheters.
    Author: Edwards M, Rickard CM, Rapchuk I, Corley A, Marsh N, Spooner AJ, Mihala G, Fraser JF.
    Journal: Crit Care Resusc; 2014 Sep; 16(3):175-83. PubMed ID: 25161019.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: To improve arterial catheter (AC) securement and reduce AC failure; to assess feasibility of a large randomised controlled trial. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A four-arm, parallel, randomised, controlled, non-blinded pilot trial with 195 intensive care patients taking part, in a tertiary referral hospital in Brisbane, Australia from May to November 2012. INTERVENTIONS: Standard polyurethane (SPU) dressing (controls); bordered polyurethane (BPU) + SPU dressing; tissue adhesive (TA) + SPU dressing; and sutureless securement device (SSD) + SPU dressing (no sutures used). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: AC failure, ie, complete dislodgement, occlusion (monitor failure, inability to infuse or fluid leaking), pain or infection (local or blood). RESULTS: Median AC dwell time was 26.2 hours and was comparable between groups. AC failure occurred in 26/195 patients (13%). AC failure was significantly worse with SPU dressings (10/47 [21%]) than with BPU + SPU dressings (2/ 43 [5%]; P = 0.03), but not significantly different to TA + SPU (6/56 [11%]; P = 0.18) or SSD + SPU (8/49 [16%]; P = 0.61). The dressing applied at AC insertion lasted until AC removal in 68% of controls; 56% of BPU + SPU dressings; 73% of TA + SPU dressings; and 80% of SSD + SPU dressings (all P > 0.05). There were no infections or serious adverse events. Patient and staff satisfaction with all products was high. Median costs (labour and materials) for securement per patient were significantly higher in all groups compared with the control group (SPU, $3.48 [IQR, $3.48-$9.79]; BPU + SPU, $5.07 [IQR, $5.07-$12.99]; SSD + SPU, $10.90 [IQR, $10.90-$10.90]; TA + SPU, $17.70 [IQR, $17.70-$38.36]; all P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: AC failure occurred significantly less often with BPU + SPU dressings than with SPU dressings. TA + SPU and SSD + SPU dressings should be further investigated and compared with BPU + SPU dressings as controls. The novel approach of TA + SPU dressings appeared safe and feasible.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]