Alberto Dal Molin1, Mario Clerico2, Michela Baccini3, Linda Guerretta2, Barbara Sartorello2, Laura Rasero4. 1. Nursing School, Biella Hospital, University of Eastern Piedmont, Biella, Italy. Electronic address: alberto.dalmolin@gmail.com. 2. Oncology Center of Biella, Biella, Italy. 3. Department of Statistics, Informatics and Applications, University of Florence, Florence, Italy; Biostatistics Unit, ISPO Cancer Prevention and Research Institute, Florence, Italy. 4. University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Our aim was to determine the non-inferiority of normal saline flushing compared to heparin flushing in maintaining the patency of totally implanted venous access devices (TIVADs). METHOD: Four hundred and thirty patients were recruited from 14 Italian centres. Patients were randomized to heparin group or to normal saline group. The primary outcome of the study was TIVAD occlusion. RESULTS: After randomisation, 203 patients were assigned to normal saline group and 212 to heparin group. Median follow up time was 204 days in normal saline group and 294 in the heparin group. We observed 24 withdrawal occlusions (5.78%): 10 in the heparin group and 14 in the normal saline group. One total occlusion was observed in the normal saline group. Taking as reference the arm treated with heparin, the absolute risk difference was 2.67 with the 90% CI including the non - inferiority margin of 4%. No significant difference between hazards of occlusion was found. CONCLUSIONS: This study failed to demonstrate that normal saline flushing is not inferior to heparin flushing, even if a significant difference between the two treatments was not found. The use of heparin is controversial and other prospective trials are necessary in this field. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number: 2009-013620-22.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Our aim was to determine the non-inferiority of normal saline flushing compared to heparinflushing in maintaining the patency of totally implanted venous access devices (TIVADs). METHOD: Four hundred and thirty patients were recruited from 14 Italian centres. Patients were randomized to heparin group or to normal saline group. The primary outcome of the study was TIVAD occlusion. RESULTS: After randomisation, 203 patients were assigned to normal saline group and 212 to heparin group. Median follow up time was 204 days in normal saline group and 294 in the heparin group. We observed 24 withdrawal occlusions (5.78%): 10 in the heparin group and 14 in the normal saline group. One total occlusion was observed in the normal saline group. Taking as reference the arm treated with heparin, the absolute risk difference was 2.67 with the 90% CI including the non - inferiority margin of 4%. No significant difference between hazards of occlusion was found. CONCLUSIONS: This study failed to demonstrate that normal saline flushing is not inferior to heparinflushing, even if a significant difference between the two treatments was not found. The use of heparin is controversial and other prospective trials are necessary in this field. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number: 2009-013620-22.
Authors: Terri Jabaley; Niya Xiong; Susanne Conley; Teresa Mazeika; Danielle Johnson; Brenda A Biggins; Nancy Hilton; Fangxin Hong Journal: Can Oncol Nurs J Date: 2022-04-01
Authors: Terri Jabaley; Niya Xiong; Susanne Conley; Teresa Mazeika; Danielle Johnson; Brenda A Biggins; Nancy Hilton; Fangxin Hong Journal: Can Oncol Nurs J Date: 2022-04-01
Authors: Lei Zhong; Hai-Li Wang; Bo Xu; Yao Yuan; Xin Wang; Ying-Ying Zhang; Li Ji; Zi-Mu Pan; Zhan-Sheng Hu Journal: Crit Care Date: 2017-01-08 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Francisca Jane Gomes de Oliveira; Andrea Bezerra Rodrigues; Islane Costa Ramos; Joselany Áfio Caetano Journal: Rev Lat Am Enfermagem Date: 2020-06-19