Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/1942/27436
Title: | SecurAstaP trial: securement with SecurAcath versus StatLock for peripherally inserted central catheters, a randomised open trial | Authors: | Goossens, Godelieve Alice Grumiaux, Niel Janssens, Christel Jerome, Martine FIEUWS, Steffen Moons, Philip Stas, Marguerite Maleux, Geert |
Issue Date: | 2018 | Publisher: | BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP | Source: | BMJ OPEN, 8(2) (Art N° e016058) | Abstract: | Objectives To assess the effect on needed nursing time for dressing change. Design, setting, participants A parallel-group, openlabel, randomised controlled trial in patients who are in need for a peripherally inserted central catheter insertion in one teaching hospital in Belgium. The follow-up lasted 180 days or until catheter removal, whatever came first. A computer generated table was used to allocate devices. Randomised patients were 105 adults (StatLock, n=53; SecurAcath, n=52) and primary analysis was based on all patients (n=92) with time measurements (StatLock, n=43; SecurAcath, n=49). Interventions StatLock which has to be changed weekly versus SecurAcath which could remain in place for the complete catheter dwell time. Main outcome measure Needed time for the dressing change at each dressing change (SecurAcath) or at each dressing change combined with the change of the securement device (StatLock). Results Median time needed for dressing change was 7.3 min (95% CI 6.4 min to 8.3 min) in the StatLock group and in the SecurAcath group 4.3 min (95% CI 3.8 min to 4.9 min) (P<0.0001). The time in the SecurAcath group was reduced with 41% (95% CI 29% to 51%). Incidence rates of migration, dislodgement and catheter-related bloodstream infection were comparable across groups. Pain scores were higher with SecurAcath than with StatLock at insertion (P=0.02) and at removal (P<0.001) and comparable during dressing change (P=0.38) and during dwell time (P=0.995). User-friendliness was scored at insertion and removal. All statements regarding the user-friendliness were scored significantly higher for StatLock than for SecurAcath (P<0.05). Only for the statement regarding the recommending routine use of the device, which was asked at removal, no difference was found between the two devices (P=0.32). Conclusion Use of SecurAcath saves time during dressing change compared with StatLock. Training on correct placement and removal of SecurAcath is critical to minimise pain. | Notes: | [Goossens, Godelieve Alice; Janssens, Christel; Jerome, Martine] Univ Hosp Leuven, Nursing Ctr Excellence, Leuven, Belgium. [Goossens, Godelieve Alice; Moons, Philip] Katholieke Univ Leuven, Dept Publ Hlth & Primary Care, Leuven, Belgium. [Grumiaux, Niel] Univ Hosp Leuven, Dept Nephrol, Leuven, Belgium. [Fieuws, Steffen] Katholieke Univ Leuven, Interuniv Ctr Biostat & Stat Bioinformat, Leuven, Belgium. [Fieuws, Steffen] Univ Hasselt, Leuven, Belgium. [Moons, Philip] Univ Gothenburg, Inst Hlth & Care Sci, Gothenburg, Sweden. [Stas, Marguerite] Univ Hosp Leuven, Surg Oncol, Leuven, Belgium. [Maleux, Geert] Univ Hosp Leuven, Intervent Radiol, Leuven, Belgium. | Document URI: | http://hdl.handle.net/1942/27436 | ISSN: | 2044-6055 | e-ISSN: | 2044-6055 | DOI: | 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016058 | ISI #: | 000433129800043 | Rights: | Open Access This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ | Category: | A1 | Type: | Journal Contribution | Validations: | ecoom 2019 |
Appears in Collections: | Research publications |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
goossens 1.pdf | Published version | 806.94 kB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
SCOPUSTM
Citations
10
checked on Sep 3, 2020
WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations
14
checked on May 1, 2024
Page view(s)
58
checked on Jun 9, 2022
Download(s)
100
checked on Jun 9, 2022
Google ScholarTM
Check
Altmetric
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.