Mário Lúcio Marques Leal1, Ana Beatriz Alkmim Teixeira Loyola2, Alexandre Ciappina Hueb3, José Dias da Silva4, Marcos Mesquita5, Luiz Francisley de Paiva6, Mauricio Landulfo Jorge Guerrieri7, João Paulo Nunes Fernandes8, Artur Costa Barros9, Lydia Masako Ferreira10. 1. Fellow Master degree, Professional Master's Program in Applied Health Sciences, Universidade do Vale do Sapucaí (UNIVÁS), Pouso Alegre-MG, Brazil. Conception, design, intellectual and scientific content of the study; acquisition, interpretation and analysis of data; manuscript writing. 2. PhD, Associate Professor, Professional Master's Program in Applied Health Sciences, UNIVÁS, Pouso Alegre-MG, Brazil. Conception, design, intellectual and scientific content of the study; interpretation and analysis of data; manuscript writing; critical revision; final approval. 3. PhD, Head, Department of Cardiac Surgery, Hospital das Clínicas Samuel Libânio, UNIVÁS, Pouso Alegre-MG, Brazil. Critical revision. 4. PhD, Associate Professor, Professional Master's Program in Applied Health Sciences, UNIVÁS, Pouso Alegre-MG, Brazil. Critical revision. 5. PhD, Full Professor, Department of Biostatistics, UNIVÁS, Pouso Alegre-MG, Brazil. Interpretation of data, statistical analysis, critical revision. 6. Biologist, Research Laboratory, UNIVÁS, Pouso Alegre-MG, Brazil. Acquisition of data. 7. Resident, Hospital das Clínicas Samuel Libânio, UNIVÁS, Pouso Alegre-MG, Brazil. Technical procedures, acquisition of data. 8. MD, Intensive Care Department, Hospital das Clínicas Samuel Libânio, UNIVÁS, Pouso Alegre-MG, Brazil. Technical procedures, acquisition of data. 9. Graduate student, UNIVÁS, Pouso Alegre-MG, Brazil. Acquisition of data. 10. PhD, Chairwoman, Head, Division of Plastic Surgery, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), Brazil. Critical revision, final approval.
Abstract
PURPOSE: : To compare the fixation of the central venous catheter (CVC) using two suture techniques. METHODS: : A clinical, analytical, interventional, longitudinal, prospective, controlled, single-blind and randomized study in adult, intensive care unit (ICU) patients. After admission and indication of CVC use, the patients were allocated to the Wing group (n = 35, catheter fixation with clamping wings and retainers) or Shoelace group (n = 35, catheter fixation using shoelace cross-tied sutures around the device). Displacement, kinking, fixation failure, hyperemia at the insertion site, purulent secretion, loss of the device, psychomotor agitation, mental confusion, and bacterial growth at the insertion site were evaluated. RESULTS: : Compared with the Wing group, the Shoelace group had a lower occurrence of catheter displacement (n=0 versus n =4; p = 0.04), kinking (n=0 versus n=8; p=0.001), and fixation failure (n=2 versus n=8; p=0.018). No significant difference was found in bacterial growth (n=20 versus n=14; p=0.267) between groups. CONCLUSION: : The Shoelace fixation technique presented fewer adverse events than the Wing fixation technique.
PURPOSE: : To compare the fixation of the central venous catheter (CVC) using two suture techniques. METHODS: : A clinical, analytical, interventional, longitudinal, prospective, controlled, single-blind and randomized study in adult, intensive care unit (ICU) patients. After admission and indication of CVC use, the patients were allocated to the Wing group (n = 35, catheter fixation with clamping wings and retainers) or Shoelace group (n = 35, catheter fixation using shoelace cross-tied sutures around the device). Displacement, kinking, fixation failure, hyperemia at the insertion site, purulent secretion, loss of the device, psychomotor agitation, mental confusion, and bacterial growth at the insertion site were evaluated. RESULTS: : Compared with the Wing group, the Shoelace group had a lower occurrence of catheter displacement (n=0 versus n =4; p = 0.04), kinking (n=0 versus n=8; p=0.001), and fixation failure (n=2 versus n=8; p=0.018). No significant difference was found in bacterial growth (n=20 versus n=14; p=0.267) between groups. CONCLUSION: : The Shoelace fixation technique presented fewer adverse events than the Wing fixation technique.
Authors: Manuel Florian Struck; Lars Friedrich; Stefan Schleifenbaum; Holger Kirsten; Wolfram Schummer; Bernd E Winkler Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-09-12 Impact factor: 3.240