OBJECTIVE: In a previous nonrandomized study we observed no difference in the rate of acquisition of bacteriuria between a complex closed drainage system (CCDS) and a two-chamber drainage system (TCDS) in ICU patients. To confirm this result we performed a statistically powerful study assessing the effectiveness of the CCDS and the TCDS in ICU patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomized, prospective, and controlled study in the medicosurgical intensive care unit (16 beds) in a teaching hospital. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS: We assigned 311 patients requiringindwelling urinary catheter for longer than 48 h to TCDS or CCDS to compare the rate of acquisition of bacteriuria. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Patients did not receive prophylactic antibiotics during placement management or catheter withdrawal. Urine samples were obtained weekly for the duration of catheterization and within 24 h after catheter removal, and each time symptoms of urinary infection were suspected. There was no statistical difference in the rate of bacteriuria between the two groups: 8% with TCDS and 8.5% with CCDS. Rates of urinary tract infection were 12.1 episodes with TCDS and 12.8 episodes with CCDS per 1000 days of catheter. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized study on the effectiveness of TCDS and CCDS in ICU patients confirms the findings of our previous study. No differences were noted between the two systems. The higher cost of CCDS is not justified for ICU patients.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: In a previous nonrandomized study we observed no difference in the rate of acquisition of bacteriuria between a complex closed drainage system (CCDS) and a two-chamber drainage system (TCDS) in ICU patients. To confirm this result we performed a statistically powerful study assessing the effectiveness of the CCDS and the TCDS in ICU patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomized, prospective, and controlled study in the medicosurgical intensive care unit (16 beds) in a teaching hospital. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS: We assigned 311 patients requiring indwelling urinary catheter for longer than 48 h to TCDS or CCDS to compare the rate of acquisition of bacteriuria. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS:Patients did not receive prophylactic antibiotics during placement management or catheter withdrawal. Urine samples were obtained weekly for the duration of catheterization and within 24 h after catheter removal, and each time symptoms of urinary infection were suspected. There was no statistical difference in the rate of bacteriuria between the two groups: 8% with TCDS and 8.5% with CCDS. Rates of urinary tract infection were 12.1 episodes with TCDS and 12.8 episodes with CCDS per 1000 days of catheter. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized study on the effectiveness of TCDS and CCDS in ICU patients confirms the findings of our previous study. No differences were noted between the two systems. The higher cost of CCDS is not justified for ICU patients.
Authors: J L Vincent; D J Bihari; P M Suter; H A Bruining; J White; M H Nicolas-Chanoin; M Wolff; R C Spencer; M Hemmer Journal: JAMA Date: 1995 Aug 23-30 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Edward Abraham; Peter Andrews; Massimo Antonelli; Laurent Brochard; Christian Brun-Buisson; Geoffrey Dobb; Jean-Yves Fagon; Johan Groeneveld; Jordi Mancebo; Philipp Metnitz; Stefano Nava; Michael Pinsky; Peter Radermacher; Marco Ranieri; Christian Richard; Robert Tasker; Benoît Vallet Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2004-05-15 Impact factor: 17.440