Hoffmann K K, Western S A, Kaiser D L, Wenzel R P, Groschel D H
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Virginia Medical Center, Charlottesville 22908.
Am J Infect Control. 1988 Jun;16(3):101-6. doi: 10.1016/0196-6553(88)90046-6.
Previous studies of various brands of polyurethane dressings have noted differences in the rates of catheter colonization. We compared Bioclusive transparent polyurethane (TP) dressing with a cotton gauze (CG) dressing on peripheral intravenous (IV) access sites for the incidence of phlebitis, catheter tip colonization, skin colonization, and catheter-related bacteremia. The study, involving 598 ward patients, was case controlled, prospective, and randomized for a period of 4 months. Each patient was entered into the study only once, and all dressings were applied by a member of the IV therapy team. No significant difference was seen for phlebitis rate (TP: 9.8% vs. CG: 7.6%) or catheter tip colonization, defined as greater than 15 colony forming units (CFU) (5.7% vs. 4.4%) by a semiquantitative technique. Cultures of specimens from the skin and catheter tips of the majority of patients (91%) showed no growth. An association was found between those patients with greater than 15 CFU isolated from catheter tips and those with phlebitis (p = 0.022). No documented catheter-related bacteremia occurred in either study group.
先前对各种品牌聚氨酯敷料的研究已经注意到导管定植率存在差异。我们将生物闭合透明聚氨酯（TP）敷料与棉纱布（CG）敷料用于外周静脉（IV）穿刺部位，比较两者在静脉炎、导管尖端定植、皮肤定植以及导管相关菌血症发生率方面的差异。该研究纳入598名病房患者，为病例对照、前瞻性且随机分组，为期4个月。每位患者仅参与一次研究，所有敷料均由静脉治疗团队成员进行更换。静脉炎发生率（TP组：9.8% 对比CG组：7.6%）以及导管尖端定植（通过半定量技术定义为大于15个菌落形成单位（CFU），TP组：5.7% 对比CG组：4.4%）方面未见显著差异。大多数患者（91%）的皮肤和导管尖端标本培养均未生长。在导管尖端分离出大于15 CFU的患者与静脉炎患者之间发现存在关联（p = 0.022）。两个研究组均未记录到导管相关菌血症的发生。
