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: Comparison of central venous catheter dressings in bone marrow transplant recipients.
    Author: Brandt B, DePalma J, Irwin M, Shogan J, Lucke JF.
    Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum; 1996 Jun; 23(5):829-36. PubMed ID: 8792352.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of two central venous catheter (CVC) dressing protocols on catheter-related infections in hospitalized patients with long-term tunneled catheters undergoing an autologous bone marrow transplant (BMT), to determine the prevalence of long-term CVC-related infections in this population, and to identify other factors in the study sample related to long-term CVC infection. DESIGN: Experimental. SETTING: BMT unit of a regional oncology center in a tertiary care hospital. SAMPLE: The sample consisted of 101 adult patients with cancer with long-term, tunneled CVCs inserted in the operating room on admission for autologous BMT. METHODS: Patients randomly were assigned to one of two dressing-change procedure groups. The control group received the current standard of care for patients receiving BMT--a dry, sterile gauze dressing (DSGD) changed every 24 hours. The experimental group received Opsite 3000TM (Smith + Nephew Ltd., Massilon, OH) transparent moisture vapor permeable dressings (MVPD) changed weekly. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: CVC infection rates, frequency of IV tubing changes, immune status, duration of catheter use, occurrence and outcome of catheter occlusion, and use of a catheter for total parenteral nutrition. FINDINGS: Researchers determined the difference in CVC-related infections between the two groups and the impact of select variables on CVC-related infection. When all categories of CVC-related infection (i.e., suspected, sepsis, tunnel) were considered, no statistical difference was found in the likelihood of the groups remaining infection-free (p = 0.76) over time. CVC sepsis occurred in one patient in the DSGD group and five patients in the MVPD group; however, this difference was not statistically significant over time (p = 0.067). CONCLUSIONS: Development of CVC sepsis or tunnel infection in close proximity to the time of CVC surgical placement suggests that factors other than the assigned dressing were associated with the occurrence of CVC-related infection in three cases. Although the MVPD group required dressing changes more frequently than every seven days (as specified by the protocol) because of exit-site drainage and nonocclusiveness, transparent dressings were more cost-effective than daily gauze dressings in this population. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: For adults undergoing autologous BMT, either DSGD or transparent CVC dressing can be used safely based on patient preference and skin tolerance to the dressing material.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]