An evaluation of driveline dressing protocols and infection rates for left ventricular assist devices across UK transplant centres

Andrew Woods, S. Tovey, Jennifer McGurk, Shishir Kore, Ewa Synowiec, Justin Mulhern, Sophie Smith, Joao Sequeira, Oscar Fernandez, Adam McDiarmid, Asif Shah, Stephan Scheuler, Guy MacGowan
{"title":"An evaluation of driveline dressing protocols and infection rates for left ventricular assist devices across UK transplant centres","authors":"Andrew Woods, S. Tovey, Jennifer McGurk, Shishir Kore, Ewa Synowiec, Justin Mulhern, Sophie Smith, Joao Sequeira, Oscar Fernandez, Adam McDiarmid, Asif Shah, Stephan Scheuler, Guy MacGowan","doi":"10.12968/bjca.2023.0044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Left ventricular assist devices are used to improve the quality of life of people waiting for heart transplantation. Driveline infections are a significant complication of these devices, occurring in 30–40% of cases, which could lead to life threatening sepsis. This study aimed to review UK driveline dressing protocols and infection rates to determine if national standardisation is possible. Six UK heart transplant centres were asked to share their driveline dressing protocols for comparison. National driveline infection data were obtained from the NHS Blood and Transplant database. Infection rates, patient demographics and device types were compared using Chi squared tests, with a P value of <0.05 indicating statistical significance. The study found 38 driveline infections over a 3-year period, with an average infection rate was 4.4% per year. There were no significant difference in infection rates between device types. Dressing protocols varied between centres, but all centres followed international guidance. The timepoint where the highest number of infections were diagnosed was 12 months post implantations, accounting for 23.7% of infections. There were no significant differences in infection rates between centres in 2019–20 or 2021–22, but a significant difference was observed for 2020–21 (P=0.013). UK driveline infection rates are below the average reported in the literature. Despite some differences in dressing protocols, all centres examined in this study maintained a level of infection comparable to reported rates. The feasibility of national standardisation remains uncertain, and further research is needed to determine the most effective dressing protocols for preventing driveline infections.","PeriodicalId":72463,"journal":{"name":"British journal of cardiac nursing","volume":"14 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of cardiac nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12968/bjca.2023.0044","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Left ventricular assist devices are used to improve the quality of life of people waiting for heart transplantation. Driveline infections are a significant complication of these devices, occurring in 30–40% of cases, which could lead to life threatening sepsis. This study aimed to review UK driveline dressing protocols and infection rates to determine if national standardisation is possible. Six UK heart transplant centres were asked to share their driveline dressing protocols for comparison. National driveline infection data were obtained from the NHS Blood and Transplant database. Infection rates, patient demographics and device types were compared using Chi squared tests, with a P value of <0.05 indicating statistical significance. The study found 38 driveline infections over a 3-year period, with an average infection rate was 4.4% per year. There were no significant difference in infection rates between device types. Dressing protocols varied between centres, but all centres followed international guidance. The timepoint where the highest number of infections were diagnosed was 12 months post implantations, accounting for 23.7% of infections. There were no significant differences in infection rates between centres in 2019–20 or 2021–22, but a significant difference was observed for 2020–21 (P=0.013). UK driveline infection rates are below the average reported in the literature. Despite some differences in dressing protocols, all centres examined in this study maintained a level of infection comparable to reported rates. The feasibility of national standardisation remains uncertain, and further research is needed to determine the most effective dressing protocols for preventing driveline infections.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
英国各移植中心左心室辅助装置驱动线敷料方案和感染率评估
左心室辅助装置用于改善等待心脏移植者的生活质量。动脉导管感染是这些装置的一个重要并发症,发生率为 30-40%,可能导致危及生命的败血症。本研究旨在审查英国的动力线敷料方案和感染率,以确定是否有可能实现全国标准化。六家英国心脏移植中心应邀分享了他们的动力线敷料方案,以供比较。从英国国家医疗服务系统(NHS)的血液和移植数据库中获得了全国性的静脉输液管感染数据。通过卡方检验对感染率、患者人口统计学特征和设备类型进行比较,P 值小于 0.05 表示统计学意义显著。研究发现,3 年内共发生 38 例动力装置感染,平均感染率为每年 4.4%。不同设备类型的感染率没有明显差异。不同中心的包扎方案各不相同,但所有中心都遵循国际指南。感染发生率最高的时间点是植入后 12 个月,占感染总数的 23.7%。各中心在 2019-20 年或 2021-22 年的感染率没有明显差异,但在 2020-21 年出现了明显差异(P=0.013)。英国的干线感染率低于文献报道的平均水平。尽管敷料方案存在一些差异,但本研究中所有接受检查的中心都保持了与报告感染率相当的感染水平。全国标准化的可行性仍不确定,需要进一步研究以确定最有效的敷料方案来预防静脉输液管感染。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The road to recovery: bumpy, but worth it The opportunity of a second life Using an international research network to CONNECT through mentorship experiences in cardiothoracic surgical research Heart failure awareness days: heart failure in primary care Fighting heart failure in Northern Ireland: are we up to the challenge?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1