不同密封帽对短期透析导管回流影响的实验研究。

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE Journal of Vascular Access Pub Date : 2024-12-06 DOI:10.1177/11297298241301508
Daniele Privitera, Davide Giustivi, Thomas Langer, Elisabetta Fiorina, Federica Gotti, Michela Rossini, Beatrice Brunoni, Nicolò Capsoni, Alberto Dal Molin, Francesco Zadek
{"title":"不同密封帽对短期透析导管回流影响的实验研究。","authors":"Daniele Privitera, Davide Giustivi, Thomas Langer, Elisabetta Fiorina, Federica Gotti, Michela Rossini, Beatrice Brunoni, Nicolò Capsoni, Alberto Dal Molin, Francesco Zadek","doi":"10.1177/11297298241301508","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Needle-free connectors (NFCs) are recommended as closure systems for peripheral and central vascular catheters to reduce needlestick injuries and infections, while potentially reducing blood reflux. However, their performance in short-term dialysis catheters has never been evaluated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the backflow associated with two NFCs (Neutron™ and Tego™) compared to the standard closure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this bench study, the physiological blood pressure of the superior vena cava was simulated. Expert operators performed three sealing sequences for each combination of connector and lumens of the catheter, with and without closing the clamp. After that, the backflow was measured in millimeters using a high-precision digital caliper.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No combination of caps, lumens, or clamping sequences eliminated the backflow. No differences were observed between standard caps and NFCs in both lumens, apart from the Tego™/<i>No clamp</i> combination in the proximal lumen that showed higher backflow (standard cap 15 [11; 17] mm vs Tego™ 23 [19; 25] mm, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Clamping reduced backflow in both the proximal (13 [11; 17] mm vs 20 [13; 25] mm) and distal lumens (12 [11; 16] mm vs 14 [12; 17] mm). No differences were found between standard caps and NFCs in the distal lumen, regardless of clamping. Proximal lumen consistently exhibited larger backflow (14 [12; 22] mm) compared to distal lumens (13 [11; 17] mm, <i>p</i> = 0.005).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>NFCs do not seem to introduce any advantage on backflow reduction as compared to a standard cap combined with lumen and clamping. Our data suggest that clamping should become standard practice when NFCs are used in the management of short-term dialysis catheters.</p>","PeriodicalId":56113,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Vascular Access","volume":" ","pages":"11297298241301508"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of different sealing caps on the backflow of short-term dialysis catheters: A bench study.\",\"authors\":\"Daniele Privitera, Davide Giustivi, Thomas Langer, Elisabetta Fiorina, Federica Gotti, Michela Rossini, Beatrice Brunoni, Nicolò Capsoni, Alberto Dal Molin, Francesco Zadek\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/11297298241301508\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Needle-free connectors (NFCs) are recommended as closure systems for peripheral and central vascular catheters to reduce needlestick injuries and infections, while potentially reducing blood reflux. However, their performance in short-term dialysis catheters has never been evaluated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the backflow associated with two NFCs (Neutron™ and Tego™) compared to the standard closure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this bench study, the physiological blood pressure of the superior vena cava was simulated. Expert operators performed three sealing sequences for each combination of connector and lumens of the catheter, with and without closing the clamp. After that, the backflow was measured in millimeters using a high-precision digital caliper.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No combination of caps, lumens, or clamping sequences eliminated the backflow. No differences were observed between standard caps and NFCs in both lumens, apart from the Tego™/<i>No clamp</i> combination in the proximal lumen that showed higher backflow (standard cap 15 [11; 17] mm vs Tego™ 23 [19; 25] mm, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Clamping reduced backflow in both the proximal (13 [11; 17] mm vs 20 [13; 25] mm) and distal lumens (12 [11; 16] mm vs 14 [12; 17] mm). No differences were found between standard caps and NFCs in the distal lumen, regardless of clamping. Proximal lumen consistently exhibited larger backflow (14 [12; 22] mm) compared to distal lumens (13 [11; 17] mm, <i>p</i> = 0.005).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>NFCs do not seem to introduce any advantage on backflow reduction as compared to a standard cap combined with lumen and clamping. Our data suggest that clamping should become standard practice when NFCs are used in the management of short-term dialysis catheters.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56113,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Vascular Access\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"11297298241301508\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Vascular Access\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/11297298241301508\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Vascular Access","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11297298241301508","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:无针连接器(nfc)被推荐作为外周和中央血管导管的闭合系统,以减少针刺损伤和感染,同时潜在地减少血液反流。然而,它们在短期透析导管中的表现从未被评估过。本研究的目的是评估两种nfc (Neutron™和Tego™)与标准闭包相关的回流情况。方法:采用模拟上腔静脉生理血压的实验方法。专家操作人员对导管接头和管腔的每种组合执行了三次密封顺序,有和没有关闭夹钳。之后,用高精度数字卡尺以毫米为单位测量回流。结果:帽、管腔或夹紧序列的组合均不能消除回流。在两个管腔中,除了近端管腔的Tego™/No钳组合显示更高的回流外,标准帽和nfc之间没有差异(标准帽15 [11;17] mm vs Tego™23 [19;25] mm, p p = 0.005)。结论:与结合管腔和夹紧的标准帽相比,nfc在减少回流方面似乎没有任何优势。我们的数据表明,当nfc用于短期透析导管的管理时,夹紧应成为标准做法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Effect of different sealing caps on the backflow of short-term dialysis catheters: A bench study.

Background: Needle-free connectors (NFCs) are recommended as closure systems for peripheral and central vascular catheters to reduce needlestick injuries and infections, while potentially reducing blood reflux. However, their performance in short-term dialysis catheters has never been evaluated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the backflow associated with two NFCs (Neutron™ and Tego™) compared to the standard closure.

Methods: In this bench study, the physiological blood pressure of the superior vena cava was simulated. Expert operators performed three sealing sequences for each combination of connector and lumens of the catheter, with and without closing the clamp. After that, the backflow was measured in millimeters using a high-precision digital caliper.

Results: No combination of caps, lumens, or clamping sequences eliminated the backflow. No differences were observed between standard caps and NFCs in both lumens, apart from the Tego™/No clamp combination in the proximal lumen that showed higher backflow (standard cap 15 [11; 17] mm vs Tego™ 23 [19; 25] mm, p < 0.001). Clamping reduced backflow in both the proximal (13 [11; 17] mm vs 20 [13; 25] mm) and distal lumens (12 [11; 16] mm vs 14 [12; 17] mm). No differences were found between standard caps and NFCs in the distal lumen, regardless of clamping. Proximal lumen consistently exhibited larger backflow (14 [12; 22] mm) compared to distal lumens (13 [11; 17] mm, p = 0.005).

Conclusion: NFCs do not seem to introduce any advantage on backflow reduction as compared to a standard cap combined with lumen and clamping. Our data suggest that clamping should become standard practice when NFCs are used in the management of short-term dialysis catheters.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Vascular Access
Journal of Vascular Access 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
31.60%
发文量
181
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Vascular Access (JVA) is issued six times per year; it considers the publication of original manuscripts dealing with clinical and laboratory investigations in the fast growing field of vascular access. In addition reviews, case reports and clinical trials are welcome, as well as papers dedicated to more practical aspects covering new devices and techniques. All contributions, coming from all over the world, undergo the peer-review process. The Journal of Vascular Access is divided into independent sections, each led by Editors of the highest scientific level: • Dialysis • Oncology • Interventional radiology • Nutrition • Nursing • Intensive care Correspondence related to published papers is also welcome.
期刊最新文献
Centrally inserted central catheter placement using a novel, handheld, image-guided, robotic device: Results of initial feasibility trial in patients. Establishing an advanced nursing vascular access programme in a children's hospital: A successful journey. Retraction: Novel electrospun polyurethane grafts for vascular access in rats. Feasibility and Safety of bedside placement of tunneled dialysis catheters: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence. Retained foreign body in radial artery: Endovascular retrieval and salvage of a hemodialysis arteriovenous fistula.
×
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