Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorEdwards, Melannieen_US
dc.contributor.authorRickard, Claireen_US
dc.contributor.authorRapchuk, Ivanen_US
dc.contributor.authorCorley, Amandaen_US
dc.contributor.authorMarsh, Nicoleen_US
dc.contributor.authorSpooner, Amyen_US
dc.contributor.authorMihala, Gaboren_US
dc.contributor.authorFraser, Johnen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-03T15:51:18Z
dc.date.available2017-05-03T15:51:18Z
dc.date.issued2014en_US
dc.identifier.issn1441-2772en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/65313
dc.description.abstractObjectives: To improve arterial catheter (AC) securement and reduce AC failure; to assess feasibility of a large randomised controlled trial. Design, setting and participants: A four-arm, parallel, randomised, controlled, non-blinded pilot trial with 195 intensive care patients taking part, in a tertiary referral hospital in Brisbane, Australia from May to November 2012. Interventions: Standard polyurethane (SPU) dressing (controls); bordered polyurethane (BPU) + SPU dressing; tissue adhesive (TA) + SPU dressing; and sutureless securement device (SSD) + SPU dressing (no sutures used). Main outcome measures: AC failure, ie, complete dislodgement, occlusion (monitor failure, inability to infuse or fluid leaking), pain or infection (local or blood). Results: Median AC dwell time was 26.2 hours and was comparable between groups. AC failure occurred in 26/195 patients (13%). AC failure was significantly worse with SPU dressings (10/47 [21%]) than with BPU + SPU dressings (2/ 43 [5%]; P = 0.03), but not significantly different to TA + SPU (6/56 [11%]; P = 0.18) or SSD + SPU (8/49 [16%]; P = 0.61). The dressing applied at AC insertion lasted until AC removal in 68% of controls; 56% of BPU + SPU dressings; 73% of TA + SPU dressings; and 80% of SSD + SPU dressings (all P > 0.05). There were no infections or serious adverse events. Patient and staff satisfaction with all products was high. Median costs (labour and materials) for securement per patient were significantly higher in all groups compared with the control group (SPU, $3.48 [IQR, $3.48-$9.79]; BPU + SPU, $5.07 [IQR, $5.07-$12.99]; SSD + SPU, $10.90 [IQR, $10.90-$10.90]; TA + SPU, $17.70 [IQR, $17.70-$38.36]; all P < 0.01). Conclusion: AC failure occurred significantly less often with BPU + SPU dressings than with SPU dressings. TA + SPU and SSD + SPU dressings should be further investigated and compared with BPU + SPU dressings as controls. The novel approach of TA + SPU dressings appeared safe and feasible.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_US
dc.format.extent148903 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.publisherAustralasian Medical Publishing Companyen_US
dc.publisher.placeAustraliaen_US
dc.publisher.urihttp://www.cicm.org.au/journal.phpen_US
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationNen_US
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom175en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto183en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissue3en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalCritical Care and Resuscitationen_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume16en_US
dc.rights.retentionYen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchClinical Nursing: Secondary (Acute Care)en_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode111003en_US
dc.titleA pilot trial of bordered polyurethane dressings, tissue adhesive and sutureless devices compared with standard polyurethane dressings for securing short-term arterial cathetersen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Peer Reviewed (HERDC)en_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
gro.facultyGriffith Health, School of Nursing and Midwiferyen_US
gro.rights.copyright© 2014 JFICM. This is the author-manuscript version of this paper. Reproduced in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Please refer to the journal website for access to the definitive, published version.en_US
gro.hasfulltextFull Text


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record