Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Assist Inferm Ric. 2000 Apr-Jun;19(2):112-9.

[Comparison of two different protocols on change of medication in central venous catheterization in patients with bone marrow transplantation: results of a randomized multicenter study].

[Article in Italian]

Abstract

Care of central venous catheter (CVC) in patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation (BMT) raises significant problems related to the high risk of local infections, to the immunodeficient status, which in itself is a predisposing factor for systematic blood stream infections. Although frequent changes of CVC dressing might theoretically reduce the incidence of infections, they are also accompanied by significant skin toxicity and patient discomfort. No study has yet addressed these points. The objective of this study was to compare two different time interval protocols for CVC dressing, in order to assess the effects on local infections and toxicity. In a multicentre study, 339 bone marrow transplant (BMT) patients with a tunnelled CVC (group A, 230 pts) or a non tunnelled one (Group B, 169 patients) were randomly allocated to receive CVC dressing changes every 5 or 10 days if belonging to group A or 2 or 5 days if in group B. Transparent impermeable polyurethane dressings were used for all patients. The rate of local infection at the site of CVC insertion was assessed by microbiological assay every 10 days, while severity of skin toxicity was measured according to the ECOG scale. Sixty-five per cent of enrolled patients were finally evaluable. Patients (in both groups) receiving CVC dressing changes at longer intervals did not show a significant increase in the rate of local infections, while those who received dressing every two days had a significant increase in local skin toxicity. Longer intervals were accompanied by a reduction in costs. The results of this study demonstrate that the increase in time interval between CVC dressing changes in BMT patients did not increment the risk of local infections, while significantly reducing patients discomfort and costs.

PMID:
11107366
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk