...
首页> 外文期刊>The Journal of hospital infection >Indwell times, complications and costs of open vs closed safety peripheral intravenous catheters: A randomized study
【24h】

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

机译:开放式和封闭式安全外围静脉导管的留置时间,并发症和费用:一项随机研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

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 137.1. h for COS PIVCs and 96. h for MOS PIVCs (P = 0.001). Among PIVCs in place for ≥24. h, the median dwell time was 144.5. h 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).
机译:背景:外周静脉导管(PIVC)引起的导管相关感染(CRI)是越来越常见的医源性并发症。为避免这种情况,尽管缺乏科学依据,但推荐的PIVC常规更换时间表已从48.h增加到72.h,随后又增加到96.h。目的:比较封闭系统(COS)PIVC与开放系统(MOS)PIVC。方法:这项前瞻性,随机对照试验比较了无并发症的COS PIVC和MOS PIVC的留置时间,仅通过临床指征即可消除。总共随机分配了1199个PIVC(642位住院患者),并培养了283个PIVC。随机分组后丢失了16根导管(11例患者)。结果:总共记录了104,469导管小时(在584 COS中为54,173。h,在599 MOS中为50,296。h)。中位停留时间为137.1。 COS PIVC为h,MOS PIVC为96。P= 0.001。在已有的PIVC中,≥24。 h,平均停留时间为144.5。 COS PIVC [95%置信区间(CI)123.4-165.6]为h,而MOS PIVC(95%CI 87.2-110.8)为99. h。使用COS PIVC可将静脉炎的发生率降低29%(31 vs 45例/ 1000导管天; P = 0.004)。 MOS PIVC持续96. h的概率为79.9%,而COS PIVC持续144. h的概率为80.4%。每1000个导管日(51.1 COS对54.1 MOS)或CRI(5.76 COS对6.65 MOS)的细菌定植率没有显着差异。尽管如此,CRI的相对风险降低了20%。结论:使用COS PIVC可以减少静脉炎的发作和感染的风险,每天的费用仅为0.09欧元。根据临床适应症更换PIVC时,COS PIVC可持续使用长达144.h,而MOS PIVC可持续使用长达96.h,且没有增加风险,并且可以节省大量成本(?786,257 /年/ 1000张床)。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号