21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine–alcohol versus povidone iodine–alcohol, combined or not with use of a bundle of new devices, for prevention of short-term peripheral venous catheter-related infectious complications and catheter failure: an open-label, single-centre, randomised, four-parallel group, two-by-two factorial trial: CLEAN 3 protocol study

      protocol

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Short peripheral intravenous catheters (PVCs) are the most frequently used invasive medical devices in hospitals. Unfortunately, PVCs often fail before the end of treatment due to the occurrence of mechanical, vascular or infectious complications, which prolongs hospitalisation and increases healthcare costs and mortality.

          Prevention of these complications is mainly based on the respect of hygiene rules and the use of biocompatible catheters. In critically ill patients, 2% chlorhexidine-alcohol is superior to 5% povidone iodine-alcohol for skin preparation before central venous and arterial catheters; whether this finding can be extended to PVC inserted in the wards remains speculative. Similarly, the use of new technologies such as catheters designed to minimise blood exposure, zero-reflux needleless connectors, disinfecting caps and flushing PVCs before and after each medication administration to maintain catheter patency are of theoretical interest to prevent PVC failure, but little scientific data support their routine use.

          Methods and analysis

          The CLEAN 3 study is an open-label, single-centre, randomised, two-by-two factorial trial. One thousand patients visiting our emergency department and requiring hospital admission in the wards will be randomised to one of four strategies according to skin preparation and devices used. The two primary endpoints will be (1) the incidence of infectious complications related to the catheters (colonisation, local infection or bloodstream infection) and (2) the time between catheter insertion and catheter failure defined as any premature removal of PVC before end of treatment, other than for routine replacement.

          Ethics and dissemination

          This protocol has been approved by an independent ethics committee and will be carried out according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and the Good Clinical Practice guidelines. The results of this study will be disseminated through presentation at scientific conferences and publication in peer-reviewed journals.

          Trial registration number

          EudraCT 2018-A02535-50; NCT03757143.

          Related collections

          Most cited references13

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Analysis and reporting of factorial trials: a systematic review.

          Although factorial trials have become common, standards for the analysis and reporting of such trials have not been established and, despite concerns about the possibility of unrecognized interactions between therapies in factorial trials, the magnitude of this potential problem is unknown. To examine the rationale, methods, and analysis of randomized factorial trials. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register using the terms factorial, interaction, 2 x 2, 2 by 2, and incremental to identify factorial randomized trials published from January 2000 to July 2002. To identify trials missed by the electronic search, we performed a hand search of English-language trials in a defined topic area (using the term myocardial ischemia [exp]) listed in MEDLINE (1966-2002), EMBASE (1980-2002), and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, as well as all trials in any topic area published in December 2000, excluding trials reporting only continuous surrogate end points. The final set of 33 eligible publications described 29 unique trials. Two investigators independently identified factorial trials, generated a list of items affecting validity of results, and abstracted these items from each trial. The sensitivity of electronic searching for identifying factorial trials was 76%. Our 3-pronged search strategy identified 44 factorial trials with clinically important binary outcomes: 36 (82%) were done for reasons of efficiency (testing 2 interventions in the same patient population), and 8 (18%) were done to assess the incremental benefits of combining the 2 treatments. All but 1 of the trials reported treatment effects by comparing all patients who received treatment A (ie, those receiving either A alone or both A and B) vs all those not receiving treatment A (ie, those receiving either B alone or neither A nor B). Twenty-nine of the 44 trials (66%) reported the data from each of the treatment groups separately; 26 trials (59%) reported testing for interactions between the treatments. Only 2 of 31 (6%) comparisons demonstrated a statistically significant interaction between the 2 treatments. Accurate interpretation of factorial trials depends on the transparent reporting of data for each treatment cell. Despite concerns about unrecognized interactions, our findings suggest that investigators are appropriately restricting their use of the factorial design to those situations in which 2 (or more) treatments do not have the potential for substantive interaction.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Short-term Peripheral Venous Catheter–Related Bloodstream Infections: A Systematic Review

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Diagnosis of central venous catheter-related sepsis. Critical level of quantitative tip cultures.

              The results of a simplified quantitative broth dilution quantitative tip culture (QTC) of 331 central venous catheters were compared with clinical data prospectively recorded in critically III patients to diagnose bacteremic or nonbacteremic catheter-related sepsis (CRS) (36 catheters), as opposed to contamination (42 catheters) or simple colonization from a distant septic focus (seven catheters). Thirty-five of 36 catheters associated with CRS yielded 10(3) colony-forming units per milliliter (CFU/mL) or more, and 3.8 X 10(2) Candida organisms grew from one. In contrast, 5 X 10(2) CFU/mL or less grew from 37 of 42 contaminated catheters. A QTC of 10(3) CFU/mL or more was 97.5% sensitive and 88% specific for the diagnosis of CRS. The QTC appeared especially useful for the diagnosis of CRS secondary to blood-borne seeding of catheters, or associated with coagulase-negative staphylococci.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2019
                2 April 2019
                : 9
                : 4
                : e028549
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentEmergency Department and Prehospital Care , Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Poitiers , Poitiers, France
                [2 ] departmentUFR Medecine et Pharmacie , Universite de Poitiers , Poitiers, France
                [3 ] departmentIntensive Care Unit and Emergency Department and Prehospital Care , Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Poitiers , Poitiers, France
                [4 ] departmentMethods in Patient-Centered Outcomes and Health Research , INSERM UMR1246 , Poitiers, France
                [5 ] departmentINSERM U1070 , Universite de Poitiers , Poitiers, France
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Professor Olivier Mimoz; olivier.mimoz@ 123456chu-poitiers.fr
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1737-7915
                Article
                bmjopen-2018-028549
                10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028549
                6500304
                30944142
                9faa1a04-c57b-4884-8847-4446fd4cc73a
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 15 December 2018
                : 10 February 2019
                : 12 February 2019
                Funding
                Funded by: becton dickinson;
                Categories
                Infectious Diseases
                Protocol
                1506
                1706
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                healthcare-associated infection,prevention,antiseptics,medical devices
                Medicine
                healthcare-associated infection, prevention, antiseptics, medical devices

                Comments

                Comment on this article