SecurAstaP trial: securement with SecurAcath versus StatLock for peripherally inserted central catheters, a randomised open trial

Godelieve Alice Goossens, Niel Grumiaux, Christel Janssens, Martine Jérôme, Steffen Fieuws, Philip Moons, Marguerite Stas, Geert Maleux, Godelieve Alice Goossens, Niel Grumiaux, Christel Janssens, Martine Jérôme, Steffen Fieuws, Philip Moons, Marguerite Stas, Geert Maleux

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the effect on needed nursing time for dressing change.

Design, setting, participants: A parallel-group, open-label, 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.

Trial registration number: NCT02311127; Pre-results.

Keywords: MARSI; Randomized Controlled Trial; SecurAcath; Securement Device; StatLock; Time And Motion Studies.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PICC secured with StatLock®. PICC, peripherally inserted central catheter.
Figure 2
Figure 2
PICC secured with SecurAcath®. PICC, peripherally inserted central catheter.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Patient flow. PICC, peripherally inserted central catheter.

References

    1. Yamamoto AJ, Solomon JA, Soulen MC, et al. . Sutureless securement device reduces complications of peripherally inserted central venous catheters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2002;13:77–81. 10.1016/S1051-0443(07)60012-8
    1. Ullman AJ, Cooke ML, Mitchell M, et al. . Dressing and securement for central venous access devices (CVADs): A Cochrane systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud 2016;59:177–96. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.04.003
    1. Macklin D, Blackburn PL. Central venous catheter securement: using the healthcare and technology synergy model to take a closer look. JAVA 2015;20:45–50. 10.1016/j.java.2014.10.011
    1. Jones TL, Schlegel C. Can real time location system technology (RTLS) provide useful estimates of time use by nursing personnel? Res Nurs Health 2014;37:75–84. 10.1002/nur.21578
    1. Horan TC, Andrus M, Dudeck MA. CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of health care-associated infection and criteria for specific types of infections in the acute care setting. Am J Infect Control 2008;36:309–32. 10.1016/j.ajic.2008.03.002
    1. Egan GM, Siskin GP, Weinmann R, et al. . A prospective postmarket study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a new peripherally inserted central catheter stabilization system. J Infus Nurs 2013;36:181–8. 10.1097/NAN.0b013e3182893690
    1. Valbousquet Schneider L, Duron S, Arnaud FX, et al. . Evaluation of PICC complications in orthopedic inpatients with bone infection for long-term intravenous antibiotics therapy. J Vasc Access 2015;16:299–308. 10.5301/jva.5000389
    1. Waterhouse J, Bandisode V, Brandon D, et al. . Evaluation of the use of a stabilization device to improve the quality of care in patients with peripherally inserted central catheters. AACN Adv Crit Care 2014;25:213–20. 10.1097/NCI.0000000000000026
    1. Elen Hughes M. Reducing PICC migrations and improving patient outcomes. Br J Nurs 2014;23:S12, S14–18.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir