Catheter Securement Systems: Comparison of Two Investigational Devices to a Sutureless Securement Device, a Securement Dressing, and Sutures in a Pig Model

Overview

Journal Intensive Care Med Exp

Specialty Critical Care

Date 2015 Aug 27

PMID 26307415

Citations 6

Authors

Laura F Rutledge

Daniel P DeCabooter

Shelley-Ann H Walters

Stephanie F Bernatchez

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Catheter securement is critical for the success of infusion therapy and to prevent complications. Our purpose was to compare the strength of catheter securement achieved with two investigational adhesive securement devices to two securement products and also to sutures using an in vivo animal model.

Methods: Twenty-five live pigs were prepared for aseptic abdominal surgery. Four central venous catheters were inserted per animal into the epigastric veins and secured with four of the five securement systems studied, following a balanced incomplete randomized block design. A peak axial pull force test method was used to measure the force required to dislodge the catheter 1 cm from the insertion site and/or cause failure of the device and/or dressing. This pull test was done 10 min after device application, per constraints of the animal model. Comparison analysis was carried out using a mixed effects model with pig, sample, and sample location as factors. Non-inferiority testing was carried out using 95 % confidence intervals with a margin of 4.52 N or 1 lb (454 g). Tukey's method was used to adjust for multiple pairwise comparisons.

Results: Results showed that the two investigational devices displayed the highest mean peak axial pull forces (40-41 N) and were significantly better than sutures (28 N, p < 0.0001) and the securement dressing (17 N, p < 0.0001) and non-inferior to the securement device (37 N) in this test. The securement device required a higher mean peak axial pull force than sutures (p = 0.0007) and the securement dressing (p < 0.0001) for failure to occur. Finally, there was also a statistical difference between sutures and the securement dressing, with sutures requiring a higher mean peak axial pull force for catheter dislodgement than the securement dressing (p < 0.0001).

Conclusion: The two investigational devices appear to be a promising alternative for catheter securement, superior to sutures and the securement dressing, and non-inferior to the securement device.

Citing Articles

Pediatric robotic surgery: issues in management-expert consensus from the Italian Society of Pediatric and Neonatal Anesthesia and Intensive Care (SARNePI) and the Italian Society of Pediatric Surgery (SICP).

Tesoro S, Gamba P, Bertozzi M, Borgogni R, Caramelli F, Cobellis G Surg Endosc. 2022; 36(11):7877-7897.

PMID: 36121503 PMC: 9613560. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09577-0.

A Primer and Literature Review on Internal and External Retention Mechanisms for Catheter Fixation.

Stevens C, Malone K, Champaneri D, Gavin N, Harper D Cureus. 2022; 14(4):e24616.

PMID: 35664377 PMC: 9150508. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.24616.

Effectiveness of different central venous catheter fixation suture techniques: An in vitro crossover study.

Struck M, Friedrich L, Schleifenbaum S, Kirsten H, Schummer W, Winkler B PLoS One. 2019; 14(9):e0222463.

PMID: 31513685 PMC: 6742355. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222463.

A new adaptation for a secure surgical drain placement and a comparison with four common drain fixation methods.

Heskin L, Cahill V, Filobbos G, Regan P, OSullivan S, Bryan K Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2018; 101(1):60-68.

PMID: 30328703 PMC: 6303816. DOI: 10.1308/rcsann.2018.0177.

Complications of intravascular catheters in ICU: definitions, incidence and severity. A randomized controlled trial comparing usual transparent dressings versus new-generation dressings (the ADVANCED study).

Gunther S, Schwebel C, Hamidfar-Roy R, Bonadona A, Lugosi M, Ara-Somohano C Intensive Care Med. 2016; 42(11):1753-1765.

PMID: 27734108 DOI: 10.1007/s00134-016-4582-2.

References

Cordovani D, Cooper R . A prospective trial on a new sutureless securement device for central venous catheters. Can J Anaesth. 2013; 60(5):504-5. DOI: 10.1007/s12630-013-9897-7. View

Vinjirayer A, Jefferson P, Ball D . Securing central venous catheters: a comparison of sutures with staples. Emerg Med J. 2004; 21(5):582-3. PMC: 1726413. DOI: 10.1136/emj.2003.009860. View

Schears G . Summary of product trials for 10, 164 patients: comparing an intravenous stabilizing device to tape. J Infus Nurs. 2006; 29(4):225-31. DOI: 10.1097/00129804-200607000-00009. View

Alekseyev S, Byrne M, Carpenter A, Franker C, Kidd C, Hulton L . Prolonging the life of a patient's IV: an integrative review of intravenous securement devices. Medsurg Nurs. 2012; 21(5):285-92. View

Simonova G, Rickard C, Dunster K, Smyth D, McMillan D, Fraser J . Cyanoacrylate tissue adhesives - effective securement technique for intravascular catheters: in vitro testing of safety and feasibility. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2012; 40(3):460-6. DOI: 10.1177/0310057X1204000311. View

Gabriel J . Vascular access devices: securement and dressings. Nurs Stand. 2010; 24(52):41-6. DOI: 10.7748/ns2010.09.24.52.41.c7955. View

Yamamoto A, Solomon J, Soulen M, Tang J, Parkinson K, Lin R . Sutureless securement device reduces complications of peripherally inserted central venous catheters. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2002; 13(1):77-81. DOI: 10.1016/s1051-0443(07)60012-8. View

Biggs T, Mohammed A, Mulvihill D . Importance of securing central venous catheters. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2012; 40(2):366-7. View

Schears G . New standards to improve catheter stabilization and patient and worker safety. J Healthc Risk Manag. 2009; 26(4):15-8. DOI: 10.1002/jhrm.5600260405. View

10.

Nayeemuddin M, Pherwani A, Asquith J . Imaging and management of complications of central venous catheters. Clin Radiol. 2013; 68(5):529-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2012.10.013. View

11.

Tsui B, Tsui J . Less leakage and dislodgement with a catheter-over-needle versus a catheter-through-needle approach for peripheral nerve block: an ex vivo study. Can J Anaesth. 2012; 59(7):655-61. DOI: 10.1007/s12630-012-9713-9. View

12.

Rosenthal K . Get a hold on costs and safety with securement devices. Nurs Manage. 2005; 36(5):52-4. DOI: 10.1097/00006247-200505000-00014. View

13.

Bausone-Gazda D, Lefaiver C, Walters S . A randomized controlled trial to compare the complications of 2 peripheral intravenous catheter-stabilization systems. J Infus Nurs. 2010; 33(6):371-84. DOI: 10.1097/NAN.0b013e3181f85be2. View

14.

Petree C, Wright D, Sanders V, Killion J . Reducing blood stream infections during catheter insertion. Radiol Technol. 2012; 83(6):532-40. View

15.

Smith B . Peripheral intravenous catheter dwell times: a comparison of 3 securement methods for implementation of a 96-hour scheduled change protocol. J Infus Nurs. 2006; 29(1):14-7. DOI: 10.1097/00129804-200601000-00004. View

16.

Motonaga G, Lee K, Kirsch J . The efficacy of the arrow staple device for securing central venous catheters to human skin. Anesth Analg. 2004; 99(5):1436-1439. DOI: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000132544.15467.10. View

17.

Sullivan T, Eaglstein W, Davis S, Mertz P . The pig as a model for human wound healing. Wound Repair Regen. 2001; 9(2):66-76. DOI: 10.1046/j.1524-475x.2001.00066.x. View

18.

Poulton B, Young P . A novel method for epidural catheter fixation. Anaesthesia. 2000; 55(11):1141-2. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2044.2000.01766-18.x. View

19.

Patel N, Smith C, Pinchak A, Hancock D . Evaluation of different methods of securing intravenous catheters: measurement of forces during simulated accidental pullout. Can J Anaesth. 1995; 42(6):504-10. DOI: 10.1007/BF03011689. View

20.

Meyer W, Schwarz R, Neurand K . The skin of domestic mammals as a model for the human skin, with special reference to the domestic pig. Curr Probl Dermatol. 1978; 7:39-52. DOI: 10.1159/000401274. View