Suppr超能文献

留置时间、开放式与密闭式安全外周静脉留置导管的并发症和费用:一项随机研究。

Indwell times, complications and costs of open vs closed safety peripheral intravenous catheters: a randomized study.

机构信息

Materials Resources Coordination, Hospital Clínico 'San Carlos', Madrid, Spain; Nursing Department, Facultad de Enfermería, Fisioterapia y Podología, Universidad Complutense, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico 'San Carlos' (IdISSC), Madrid, Spain.

Department of Microbiology, Hospital Clínico 'San Carlos', Madrid, Spain.

出版信息

J Hosp Infect. 2014 Feb;86(2):117-26. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2013.10.008. Epub 2013 Dec 1.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Catheter-related infections (CRIs) caused by peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are an increasingly common iatrogenic complication. To prevent this, recommended timelines for routine replacement of PIVCs have increased from 48 h to 72 h and subsequently to 96 h, despite a lack of supporting scientific evidence.

AIM

To compare closed-system (COS) PIVCs with open-system (MOS) PIVCs.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized controlled trial compared the indwell time of COS PIVCs without complications with that of MOS PIVCs, removed only by clinical indication. In total, 1199 PIVCs (642 inpatients) were randomized and 283 PIVCs were cultured. Sixteen catheters (11 patients) were lost to the study after randomization.

FINDINGS

In total, 104,469 catheter-hours (54,173 h in 584 COS and 50,296 h in 599 MOS) were recorded. The median dwell time was 137.1h for COS PIVCs and 96 h for MOS PIVCs (P = 0.001). Among PIVCs in place for ≥ 24 h, the median dwell time was 144.5h for COS PIVCs [95% confidence interval (CI) 123.4-165.6] and 99 h for MOS PIVCs (95% CI 87.2-110.8). Use of COS PIVCs reduced phlebitis rates by 29% (31 vs 45 cases/1000 catheter-days; P = 0.004). The probability that a MOS PIVC would last for 96 h was 79.9%, and the probability that a COS PIVC would last for 144 h was 80.4%. There were no significant differences in rates of bacterial colonization per 1000 catheter-days (51.1 COS vs 54.1 MOS) or CRI (5.76 COS vs 6.65 MOS). Nevertheless, there was a 20% relative risk reduction in CRI.

CONCLUSION

Use of COS PIVCs reduced episodes of phlebitis and risk of infection at a cost of only € 0.09/day. When PIVCs are replaced based on clinical indication, COS PIVCs last for up to 144 h and MOS PIVCs last for up to 96 h without increased risk and with significant cost savings (€ 786,257/year/1000 beds).

摘要

背景

外周静脉导管(PIVC)相关感染(CRI)是一种日益常见的医源性并发症。为了预防这种情况,推荐的 PIVC 常规更换时间已从 48 小时延长至 72 小时,随后延长至 96 小时,尽管缺乏支持科学证据。

目的

比较密闭式(COS)和开放式(MOS)PIVC。

方法

这项前瞻性、随机对照试验比较了无并发症的密闭式 PIVC 和仅根据临床指征更换的开放式 PIVC 的留置时间。共有 1199 例 PIVC(642 例住院患者)被随机分组,其中 283 例 PIVC 被培养。16 根导管(11 名患者)在随机分组后脱落研究。

结果

共记录了 104469 导管小时(54173 小时在 584 个 COS 中,50296 小时在 599 个 MOS 中)。COS PIVC 的中位留置时间为 137.1 小时,MOS PIVC 为 96 小时(P = 0.001)。在留置时间≥24 小时的 PIVC 中,COS PIVC 的中位留置时间为 144.5 小时(95%置信区间 123.4-165.6),MOS PIVC 为 99 小时(95%置信区间 87.2-110.8)。使用 COS PIVC 可使静脉炎发生率降低 29%(31 例/1000 导管日与 45 例/1000 导管日;P = 0.004)。MOS PIVC 持续 96 小时的概率为 79.9%,COS PIVC 持续 144 小时的概率为 80.4%。每 1000 导管日的细菌定植率(COS 为 51.1 例与 MOS 为 54.1 例)或 CRI(COS 为 5.76 例与 MOS 为 6.65 例)无显著差异。然而,CRI 的相对风险降低了 20%。

结论

使用 COS PIVC 可降低静脉炎发作和感染风险,成本仅增加 0.09 欧元/天。当根据临床指征更换 PIVC 时,COS PIVC 最长可使用 144 小时,MOS PIVC 最长可使用 96 小时,且不会增加风险,同时可显著节省成本(每年/1000 张床位 786257 欧元)。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验