Suppr超能文献

住院成人中使用整合型与非整合型外周静脉导管(OPTIMUM):一项随机对照试验。

Integrated versus nonintegrated peripheral intravenous catheter in hospitalized adults (OPTIMUM): A randomized controlled trial.

机构信息

School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, The University of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research, Herston, Queensland, Australia.

Nursing and Midwifery Research Centre, Herston Infectious Diseases Institute, Metro North Health, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Queensland, Australia.

出版信息

J Hosp Med. 2023 Jan;18(1):21-32. doi: 10.1002/jhm.12995. Epub 2022 Nov 13.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

One-third of peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) fail from inflammatory or infectious complications, causing substantial treatment interruption and replacement procedures.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to compare complications between integrated PIVCs (inbuilt extension sets, wings, and flattened bases) and traditional nonintegrated PIVCs.

DESIGNS, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: A centrally randomized, controlled, superiority trial (with allocation concealment until study entry) was conducted in three Australian hospitals. Medical-surgical patients (one PIVC each) requiring intravenous therapy for >24 h were studied.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was device failure (composite: occlusion, infiltration, phlebitis, dislodgement, local, or bloodstream infection). Infection endpoints were assessor-masked. The secondary outcomes were: failure type, first-time insertion success, tip colonization, insertion pain, dwell time, mortality, costs, health-related quality of life, clinician, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Out of 1759 patients randomized (integrated PIVC, n = 881; nonintegrated PIVC, n = 878), 1710 (97%) received a PIVC and were in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (2269 PIVC-days integrated; 2073 PIVC-days nonintegrated). Device failure incidence was 35% (145 per 1000 device-days) nonintegrated, and 33% (124 per 1000 device-days) integrated PIVCs.

INTERVENTION

Integrated PIVCs had a significantly lower failure risk (adjusted [sex, infection, setting, site, gauge] hazard ratio [HR]: 0.82 [95% confidence interval, CI: 0.69-0.96], p = .015). The per-protocol analysis was consistent (adjusted HR: 0.80 [95% CI: 0.68-0.95], p = .010). Integrated PIVCs had significantly longer dwell (top quartile ≥ 95 vs. ≥84 h). Mean per-patient costs were not statistically different.

CONCLUSIONS

PIVC failure is common and complex. Significant risk factors include sex, infection at baseline, care setting, insertion site, catheter gauge, and catheter type. Integrated PIVCs can significantly reduce the burden of PIVC failure on patients and the health system.

摘要

背景

三分之一的外周静脉导管(PIVC)因炎症或感染并发症而失效,导致大量治疗中断和更换程序。

目的

我们旨在比较内置式 PIVC(内置延长套件、翼片和扁平底座)与传统非内置式 PIVC 的并发症。

设计、地点和参与者:在澳大利亚的三家医院进行了一项中心随机、对照、优效性试验(采用分配隐藏至研究入组)。需要静脉治疗>24 小时的内科-外科患者(每人一条 PIVC)进行了研究。

主要观察指标

主要结局是器械失效(复合:闭塞、渗出、静脉炎、移位、局部或血流感染)。感染终点由评估者设盲评估。次要结局包括:失效类型、首次插入成功率、尖端定植、插入疼痛、留置时间、死亡率、成本、健康相关生活质量、临床医生和患者满意度。

结果

在 1759 名随机患者(内置式 PIVC,n=881;非内置式 PIVC,n=878)中,1710 名(97%)接受了 PIVC 治疗,并进行了改良意向治疗分析(内置式 2269 个 PIVC 日;非内置式 2073 个 PIVC 日)。非内置式 PIVC 的器械失效发生率为 35%(每 1000 个器械日 145 例),内置式 PIVC 为 33%(每 1000 个器械日 124 例)。

干预措施

内置式 PIVC 的失效风险显著降低(调整后的[性别、感染、设置、部位、导管规格]风险比[HR]:0.82[95%置信区间,CI:0.69-0.96],p=0.015)。符合方案分析结果一致(调整后的 HR:0.80[95%CI:0.68-0.95],p=0.010)。内置式 PIVC 的留置时间明显延长(四分位间距≥95 小时与≥84 小时)。每位患者的平均成本无统计学差异。

结论

PIVC 失效很常见且复杂。显著的危险因素包括性别、基线感染、护理环境、插入部位、导管规格和导管类型。内置式 PIVC 可显著降低患者和卫生系统的 PIVC 失效负担。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8f71/10099685/ef001bb88017/JHM-18-21-g003.jpg

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