• Amanda J Ullman, Debbie Long, Tara Williams, Kylie Pearson, Gabor Mihala, Adrian C Mattke, Fiona Macfarlane, and Claire M Rickard.
• Alliance for Vascular Access Teaching and Research, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, Australia.
• Pediatr Crit Care Me. 2019 Oct 1; 20 (10): e480-e488.

ObjectivesCentral venous access devices enable many treatments during critical illness; however, 25% of pediatric central venous access devices fail before completion of treatment due to infection, thrombosis, dislodgement, and occlusion. This is frequently attributed to inadequate securement and dressing of the device; however, high-quality research evaluating pediatric central venous access device securement innovation to prevent central venous access device failure is scarce. This study aimed to establish the feasibility of a definitive randomized control trial examining the effectiveness of current and new technologies to secure central venous access devices in pediatrics.DesignSingle-center, parallel group, superiority, pilot randomized control trial.SettingAnesthetic and intensive care departments of a tertiary pediatric hospital SUBJECTS:: One-hundred eighty pediatric patients with nontunneled central venous access device INTERVENTIONS:: Participants were randomized to receive central venous access device securement via standard care (bordered polyurethane dressing, with prolene sutures, chlorhexidine gluconate disc), tissue adhesive (Histoacryl, B Braun, Melsungen, Germany) in addition to standard care; or integrated dressing securement (SorbaView SHIELD [Centurion Medical Products, Franklin, MA], with prolene sutures and chlorhexidine gluconate disc).OutcomesPrimary: Feasibility (including effect size estimates, acceptability); central venous access device failure; central venous access device complications; secondary: individual central venous access device complications, skin damage, dressing performance, and product cost.Measurements And Main ResultsFeasibility criteria were achieved as recruitment occurred with acceptable eligibility, recruitment, missing data, and attrition rates, as well as good protocol adherence. Family members and staff-reported comparable levels of acceptability between study arms; however, tissue adhesive was reported as the most difficult to apply. Overall, 6% of central venous access devices failed, including 6% (3/54; incident rate, 13.2 per 1,000 catheter days) standard care, 2% (1/56; incident rate, 3.65 per 1,000 catheter days) integrated, and 8% (5/59; 25.0 per 1,000 catheter days) tissue adhesive.ConclusionsIt is feasible to conduct an efficacy randomized control trial of the studied interventions. Further research is required to definitively identify clinical, cost-effective methods to prevent central venous access device failure by examining new dressing and securement technologies and techniques.

25 keywords...

hide…