Tissue adhesives for peripheral intravenous catheter securement: A prospective randomized controlled pilot trial.
Fixation device
Medical device failure
Occlusive dressings
Peripheral venous catheterization
Tissue adhesive
Journal
The American journal of emergency medicine
ISSN: 1532-8171
Titre abrégé: Am J Emerg Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8309942
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2021
06 2021
Historique:
received:
24
10
2020
revised:
25
01
2021
accepted:
28
01
2021
pubmed:
21
2
2021
medline:
22
6
2021
entrez:
20
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In some patients securing the peripheral intravenous cannula (PIVC) with a standard adhesive dressing can be difficult because of sweat or other body fluids. The aim of our study was to evaluate the use of tissue adhesives alone as a means to secure PIVCs inserted in the emergency department. We performed a prospective interventional pilot study from November 2019 to May 2020 in a medical emergency department of an urban tertiary hospital. Patients were randomized to two groups: tissue adhesives (TA) or adhesive dressing (AD) group. After randomization we followed them until day 4. There were no significant differences between TA and AD groups in the rate of unplanned removal of PIVCs in the first 72 h (57.1% vs. 45.8%, p = 0.29), the rate of unplanned removal of PIVCs in the ED (0% vs. 2.1%, p = 1.00), the rate of unplanned removal of PIVC in the first 24 h (42.8% vs. 35.4%, p = 0.52), as well as in the rate of phlebitis (7.1% vs. 14.6%, p = 0.34) and the rate of any blood-stream infection (0% vs. 0%, p = 1.00). We did not observe any significant differences when PIVCs inserted in the emergency department were secured with tissue adhesives alone, compared to standard adhesive dressings. We observed a high rate of unplanned removal of PIVCs, necessitating further research to determine more reliable ways of securing PIVCs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In some patients securing the peripheral intravenous cannula (PIVC) with a standard adhesive dressing can be difficult because of sweat or other body fluids. The aim of our study was to evaluate the use of tissue adhesives alone as a means to secure PIVCs inserted in the emergency department.
METHODS
We performed a prospective interventional pilot study from November 2019 to May 2020 in a medical emergency department of an urban tertiary hospital. Patients were randomized to two groups: tissue adhesives (TA) or adhesive dressing (AD) group. After randomization we followed them until day 4.
RESULTS
There were no significant differences between TA and AD groups in the rate of unplanned removal of PIVCs in the first 72 h (57.1% vs. 45.8%, p = 0.29), the rate of unplanned removal of PIVCs in the ED (0% vs. 2.1%, p = 1.00), the rate of unplanned removal of PIVC in the first 24 h (42.8% vs. 35.4%, p = 0.52), as well as in the rate of phlebitis (7.1% vs. 14.6%, p = 0.34) and the rate of any blood-stream infection (0% vs. 0%, p = 1.00).
CONCLUSION
We did not observe any significant differences when PIVCs inserted in the emergency department were secured with tissue adhesives alone, compared to standard adhesive dressings. We observed a high rate of unplanned removal of PIVCs, necessitating further research to determine more reliable ways of securing PIVCs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33610080
pii: S0735-6757(21)00099-1
doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2021.01.088
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Tissue Adhesives
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
128-131Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Competing Interest All authors declare that there are no conflict of interests relating to the study entitled “Tissue Adhesives for Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Securement: a Propective Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial.”