Femoral to abdomen tunneling at the bedside for medium/long term venous access.

BACKGROUND: Femoral to abdomen tunneling of small-bore central venous catheters is a bedside technique for patients with contraindications to a thoracic approach, or as an alternative to a lower extremity catheter exit site. METHOD: A femoral to abdomen tunneling technique was implemented for patients receiving medium and long-term intravenous treatments with contraindications to the thoracic venous approach or as an alternative to a lower extremity catheter exit site. All venous access devices were inserted with ultrasound guidance under local anesthesia, and catheter tip placement assessed by post procedural radiography. RESULTS: In this case series, from January 2020 to January 2023, a total of eight FTA-tunneled venous access devices were inserted. There were seven ambulatory patients and one bedbound patient. The median length of the subcutaneous tunnel was 20 cm, ranging from 15 to 27 cm. The median length of the intravenous catheter to the terminal tip was 31 cm, ranging from 23 to 40 cm. Tip location was confirmed by post-procedural abdominal radiograph. The catheter tip locations were interpreted to be at the level of T8-T9 (2), T12 (1), L4 (2), L2 (2), L1(1).No insertion or post insertion related complication was reported. Six patients completed the scheduled intravenous treatment. One patient was unable to be tracked due to transfer to an outside facility. One catheter initially demonstrated to be coiled over the left common iliac vessel was repositioned using a high flow flush technique. There was one reported catheter dislodgment by the nurse providing care and maintenance. The overall implant days were 961, with a median dwell time of 125 days ranging from 20 to 399 days. CONCLUSION: Femoral to abdomen tunneling provides an alternative exit site useful in select patients with complex intravenous access. The data of this small retrospective review suggests this a safe and minimally invasive bedside procedure.

Incidence and risk factors for central venous access device failure in hospitalized adults: A multivariable analysis of 1892 catheters.

BACKGROUND: Central venous access devices (CVADs) allow intravenous therapy, haemodynamic monitoring and blood sampling but many fail before therapy completion. OBJECTIVE: To quantify CVAD failure and complications; and identify risk factors. DESIGNS, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Secondary analysis of multicentre randomised controlled trial including patients aged ≥16 years with a non-tunnelled CVAD (NTCVAD), peripherally-inserted central catheter (PICC) or tunnelled CVAD (TCVAD). Primary outcome was incidence of all-cause CVAD failure (central line-associated bloodstream infection [CLABSI], occlusion, accidental dislodgement, catheter fracture, thrombosis, pain). Secondary outcomes were CLABSI, occlusion and dislodgement. Cox regression was used to report time-to-event associations. RESULTS: In 1892 CVADs, all-cause failure occurred in 10.2% of devices: 49 NTCVADs (6.1%); 100 PICCs (13.2%); 44 TCVADs (13.4%). Failure rates for CLABSI, occlusion and dislodgement were 5.3%, 1.8%, and 1.7%, respectively. Independent CLABSI predictors were blood product administration through PICCs (hazard ratio (HR) 2.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24-5.55); and in TCVADs, one or two lumens, compared with three to four (HR 3.36, 95%CI 1.68-6.71), intravenous chemotherapy (HR 2.96, 95%CI 1.31-6.68), and diabetes (HR 3.25, 95%CI 1.40-7.57). Independent factors protective for CLABSI include antimicrobial NTCVADs (HR 0.23, 95%CI 0.08-0.63) and lipids in TCVADs (HR 0.32, 95%CI 0.14-0.72). NTCVADs inserted at another hospital (HR 7.06, 95%CI 1.48-33.7) and baseline infection in patients with PICCs (HR 2.72, 95%CI 1.08-6.83) were predictors for dislodgement. No independent occlusion predictors were found. Modifiable risk factors were identified for CVAD failure, which occurred for 1-in-10 catheters. Strict infection prevention measures and improved CVAD securement could reduce CLABSI and dislodgement risk.

Dressings and securement devices to prevent complications for peripheral arterial catheters.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral arterial catheters (ACs) are used in anaesthesia and intensive care settings for blood sampling and monitoring. Despite their importance, ACs often fail, requiring reinsertion. Dressings and securement devices maintain AC function and prevent complications such as infection. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of peripheral AC dressing and securement devices to prevent failure and complications in hospitalised people. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL Plus up to 16 May 2023. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to 16 May 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different dressing and securement devices for the stabilisation of ACs in hospitalised people. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's RoB 1 tool. We resolved disagreements by discussion, or by consulting a third review author when necessary. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs with 1228 participants and 1228 ACs. All included studies had high risk of bias in one or more domains. We present the following four comparisons, with the remaining comparisons reported in the main review. Standard polyurethane (SPU) plus tissue adhesive (TA) compared with SPU: we are very uncertain whether use of SPU plus TA impacts rates of AC failure (risk ratio (RR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.98; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 165 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Neither study (165 participants) reported catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI), thus we are very uncertain whether SPU plus TA impacts on the incidence of CRBSI (very low-certainty evidence). It is very uncertain whether use of SPU plus TA impacts AC dislodgement risk (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.03 to 9.62; I² = 44%; 2 studies, 165 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether use of SPU plus TA impacts AC occlusion rates (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.91; I² = 3%; 2 studies, 165 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether use of SPU plus TA impacts rates of adverse events with few reported events across groups (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.09 to 8.33; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 165 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Bordered polyurethane (BPU) compared to SPU: we are very uncertain whether use of BPU impacts rates of AC failure (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.13; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). BPU may make little or no difference to CRBSI compared to SPU (RR 3.05, 95% CI 0.12 to 74.45; I² = not applicable as 1 study (60 participants) reported 0 events; 2 studies, 572 participants; low-certainty evidence). BPU may make little or no difference to the risk of AC dislodgement compared with SPU (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.22; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 572 participants; low-certainty evidence). BPU may make little or no difference to occlusion risk compared with SPU (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.07; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 572 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is very uncertain whether BPU impacts on the risk of adverse events compared with SPU (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.87; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). SPU plus sutureless securement devices (SSD) compared to SPU: we are very uncertain whether SPU plus SSD impacts risk of AC failure compared with SPU (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.52; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 157 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain if SPU plus SSD impacts CRBSI incidence rate with no events in both groups (2 studies, 157 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is very uncertain whether SPU plus SSD impacts risk of dislodgement (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.57; I² = not applicable as 1 study (96 participants) reported 0 events; 2 studies, 157 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is very uncertain whether SPU plus SSD impacts risk of AC occlusion (RR 1.94, 95% CI 0.50 to 7.48; I² = 38%; 2 studies, 157 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether SPU plus SSD impacts on the risk of adverse events (RR 1.94, 95% CI 0.19 to 20.24; I² = not applicable as 1 study (96 participants) reported 0 events; 2 studies, 157 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Integrated securement dressings compared to SPU: integrated securement dressings may result in little or no difference in risk of AC failure compared with SPU (RR 1.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 4.84; 1 study, 105 participants; low-certainty evidence); may result in little or no difference in CRBSI incidence with no events reported (1 study, 105 participants; low-certainty evidence); may result in little or no difference in the risk of dislodgement (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.04; 1 study, 105 participants; low-certainty evidence), may result in little or no difference in occlusion rates with no events reported (1 study, 105 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may result in little or no difference in the risk of adverse events (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.45; 1 study, 105 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently limited rigorous RCT evidence available about the relative clinical effectiveness of AC dressing and securement products. Limitations of current evidence include small sample size, infrequent events, and heterogeneous outcome measurements. We found no clear difference in the incidence of AC failure, CRBSI, or adverse events across AC dressing or securement products including SPU, BPU, SSD, TA, and integrated securement products. The limitations of current evidence means further rigorous RCTs are needed to reduce uncertainty around the use of dressing and securement devices for ACs.

Comparison of outcomes from tunnelled femorally inserted central catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters: a propensity score-matched cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare catheter-related outcomes of individuals who received a tunnelled femorally inserted central catheter (tFICC) with those who received a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) in the upper extremities. DESIGN: A propensity-score matched cohort study. SETTING: A 980-bed tertiary referral hospital in South West Sydney, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: In-patients referred to the hospital central venous access service for the insertion of a central venous access device. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of all-cause catheter failure. Secondary outcomes included the rates of catheters removed because of suspected or confirmed catheter-associated infection, catheter dwell and confirmed upper or lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT). RESULTS: The overall rate of all-cause catheter failure in the matched tFICC and PICC cohort was 2.4/1000 catheter days (95% CI 1.1 to 4.4) and 3.0/1000 catheter days (95% CI 2.3 to 3.9), respectively, and when compared, no difference was observed (difference -0.63/1000 catheter days, 95% CI -2.32 to 1.06). We found no differences in catheter dwell (mean difference of 14.2 days, 95% CI -6.6 to 35.0, p=0.910); or in the cumulative probability of failure between the two groups within the first month of dwell (p=0.358). No significant differences were observed in the rate of catheters requiring removal for confirmed central line-associated bloodstream infection (difference 0.13/1000 catheter day, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.63, p=0.896). Similarly, no significant differences were found between the groups for confirmed catheter-related DVT (difference -0.11 per 1000 catheter days, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.04, p=1.00). CONCLUSION: There were no differences in catheter-related outcomes between the matched cohort of tFICC and PICC patients, suggesting that tFICCs are a possible alternative for vascular access when the veins of the upper extremities or thoracic region are not viable for catheterisation.

Risk factors for arterial catheter failure and complications during critical care hospitalisation: a secondary analysis of a multisite, randomised trial.

OBJECTIVES: Arterial catheters (ACs) are critical for haemodynamic monitoring and blood sampling but are prone to complications. We investigated the incidence and risk factors of AC failure. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial (ACTRN 12610000505000). Analysis included a subset of adult intensive care unit patients with an AC. The primary outcome was all-cause device failure. Secondary outcomes were catheter associated bloodstream infection (CABSI), suspected CABSI, occlusion, thrombosis, accidental removal, pain, and line fracture. Risk factors associated with AC failure were investigated using Cox proportional hazards and competing-risk models. RESULTS: Of 664 patients, 173 (26%) experienced AC failure (incidence rate [IR] 37/1000 catheter days). Suspected CABSI was the most common failure type (11%; IR 15.3/1000 catheter days), followed by occlusion (8%; IR 11.9/1,000 catheter days), and accidental removal (4%; IR 5.5/1000 catheter days). CABSI occurred in 16 (2%) patients. All-cause failure and occlusion were reduced with ultrasound-assisted insertion (failure: adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.43, 95% CI 0.25, 0.76; occlusion: sub-HR 0.11, 95% CI 0.03, 0.43). Increased age was associated with less AC failure (60-74 years HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.89; 75 + years HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.20, 0.64; referent 15-59 years). Females experienced more occlusion (adjusted sub-HR 2.53, 95% CI 1.49, 4.29), while patients with diabetes had less (SHR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04, 0.63). Suspected CABSI was associated with an abnormal insertion site appearance (SHR 2.71, 95% CI 1.48, 4.99). CONCLUSIONS: AC failure is common with ultrasound-guided insertion associated with lower failure rates. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN 12610000505000); date registered: 18 June 2010.

Frailty in the prediction of delirium in the intensive care unit: A secondary analysis of the Deli study.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is an acute disorder of attention and cognition with an incidence of up to 70% in the adult intensive care setting. Due to the association with significantly increased morbidity and mortality, it is important to identify who is at the greatest risk of an acute episode of delirium while being cared for in the intensive care. The objective of this study was to determine the ability of the cumulative deficit frailty index and clinical frailty scale to predict an acute episode of delirium among adults admitted to the intensive care. METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of the Deli intervention study, a hybrid stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of a nurse-led intervention to reduce the incidence and duration of delirium among adults admitted to the four adult intensive care units in the south-west of Sydney, Australia. Important predictors of delirium were identified using a bootstrap approach and the absolute risks, based on the cumulative deficit frailty index and the clinical frailty scale are presented. RESULTS: During the 10-mth data collection period (May 2019 and February 2020) 2566 patients were included in the study. Both the cumulative deficit frailty index and the clinical frailty scale on admission, plus age, sex, and APACHE III (AP III) score were able to discriminate between patients who did and did not experience an acute episode of delirium while in the intensive care, with AUC of 0.701 and 0.703 (moderate discriminatory ability), respectively. The addition of a frailty index to a prediction model based on age, sex, and APACHE III score, resulted in net reclassified of risk. Nomograms to individualize the absolute risk of delirium using these predictors are also presented. CONCLUSION: We have been able to show that both the cumulative deficits frailty index and clinical frailty scale predict an acute episode of delirium among adults admitted to intensive care.

Comparing the use of midline catheters versus peripherally inserted central catheters for patients requiring peripherally compatible therapies: A pilot randomised controlled trial (the compact trial).

BACKGROUND: Midline catheter (MC) use has increased in acute-care settings, particularly for patients with difficult venous access or requiring peripherally compatible intravenous therapy for up-to 14 days. Our aim was to assess feasibility and generate clinical data comparing MCs with Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters (PICCs). METHODS: A two-arm parallel group pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT), comparing MCs with PICCs, was conducted in a large tertiary hospital in Queensland between September 2020 and January 2021. The primary outcome was study feasibility, measured against rates of eligibility (>75%), consent (>90%), attrition (<5%); protocol adherence (>90%) and missing data (<5%). The primary clinical outcome was all-cause device failure. RESULTS: In total, 25 patients were recruited. The median patient age was 59-62 years; most patients were overweight/obese, with ≥2 co-morbidities. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: The eligibility and protocol adherence criteria were not met; of 159 screened patients, only 25 (16%) were eligible, and three patients did not receive their allocated intervention post-randomisation (88% adherence). All-cause failure occurred in two patients allocated to MC (20%) and one PICC (8.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that a fully powered RCT testing MCs compared with PICCs is not currently feasible in our setting. We recommend a robust process evaluation before the introduction of MCs into clinical practice.

Delirium in the intensive care unit and its importance in the post-operative context: A review.

The burden of delirium in the intensive care setting is a global priority. Delirium affects up to 80% of patients in intensive care units; an episode of delirium is often distressing to patients and their families, and delirium in patients within, or outside of, the intensive care unit (ICU) setting is associated with poor outcomes. In the short term, such poor outcomes include longer stay in intensive care, longer hospital stay, increased risk of other hospital-acquired complications, and increased risk of hospital mortality. Longer term sequelae include cognitive impairment and functional dependency. While medical category of admission may be a risk factor for poor outcomes in critical care populations, outcomes for surgical ICU admissions are also poor, with dependency at hospital discharge exceeding 30% and increased risk of in-hospital mortality, particularly in vulnerable groups, with high-risk procedures, and resource-scarce settings. A practical approach to delirium prevention and management in the ICU setting is likely to require a multi-faceted approach. Given the good evidence for the prevention of delirium among older post-operative outside of the intensive care setting, simple non-pharmacological interventions should be effective among older adults post-operatively who are cared for in the intensive care setting. In response to this, the future ICU environment will have a range of organizational and distinct environmental characteristics that are directly targeted at preventing delirium.

The burden of peripheral intravenous catheters in older hospital inpatients: A national cross-sectional study part of the ONE MILLION GLOBAL PERIPHERAL INTRAVENOUS CATHETERS COLLABORATION.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the burden of peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) in older hospitalised patients. METHODS: A cross-sectional prospective observational study (2014/2015) to describe the characteristics, indications and outcomes of PIVCs among patients aged ≥65 from 65 Australian hospitals. RESULTS: Amongst 2179 individual PIVCs (in 2041 patients, mean age 77.6 years, 45% female, 58% in NSW), 43% were inserted by doctors and 74% used that day, meaning 25% were 'idle'. Overall, 18% (393/2179) exhibited signs of PIVC-related complications. Most commonly exhibited PIVC-related complications were tenderness (4.1%) and local redness (1.8%). Nearly one in three (29.1%) dressings was soiled, loosened or had come off, and only 36.8% had the time and date documented on the dressing. Both infusing IV medications (aOR 1.74, 95% CI 1.28-2.38, p < 0.001) and inserting the PIVC in a non-upper limb vein (aOR 3.40 compared to forearm [reference site], 95% CI 1.62-7.17, p < 0.001) were independently associated with PIVC failure. Phlebitis was exhibited in 7% (154) of the patients. Only infusing intravenous medications increased the likelihood of developing symptoms of phlebitis (aOR 1.61, 95% CI 1.01-2.57, p = 0.05). Increasing age was inversely associated with symptoms of phlebitis. Among the 1575 patients (79%) who rated their PIVC experience using the Likert scale 0-10 (where 10 = 'best possible'), the median score was 8 (IQR 6-10). Age in highest quartile (>84 years) was independently associated with lower likelihood of a high score (aOR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54-0.94, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Given 1 in 5 PIVCs were identified with having complications, further research should focus on optimising PIVC use in older patients.

A randomised trial of intracavitary electrocardiography versus surface landmark measurement for central venous access device placement.

BACKGROUND: Malpositioned central venous access devices (CVADs) can lead to significant patient injury including central vein thrombosis and dysrhythmias. Intra-cavitary electrocardiography (IC ECG) has been recommended by peak professional bodies as an accurate alternative for bedside CVAD insertion, to reduce risk of malposition and allowing immediate use of the device. Our objective was to compare the effect of IC ECG on CVAD malposition compared to traditional institutional practice for CVAD placement. METHODS: Randomised controlled trial of IC ECG CVAD insertion verses traditional CVAD insertion (surface landmark measurement with post insertion x ray). Patient recruitment was from December 2016 to July 2018. The setting was a 900-bed tertiary referral hospital based in South Western Sydney, Australia. Three hundred and forty-four adult patients requiring CVAD insertion for intravenous therapy, were enrolled and randomly allocated (1:1 ratio) to either IC-ECG (n = 172) or traditional (n = 172) CVAD insertion. Our primary outcome of interest was the rate of catheters not requiring repositioning after insertion (ready for use). Secondary outcomes were comparison of procedure time and cost. RESULTS: Of the 172 patients allocated to the IC ECG method, 170 (99%) were ready for use immediately compared to 139 of the 172 (81%) in the traditional insertion group (difference, 95% confidence interval (CI): 18%, 11.9-24.1%). The total procedure time was mean 15 min (SD 8 min) for IC ECG and mean 36 min (SD 17 min) for traditional CVAD insertion (difference-19.9 min (95% CI-14.6 to -34.4). IC ECG guided CVAD insertion had a cost reduction of AUD $62.00 per procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Using IC-ECG resulted in nearly no requirement for post-insertion repositioning of CVADs resulting in savings in time and cost and virtually eliminating the need for radiographic confirmation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered at the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (http://www.anzctr.org.au). The registration number is ACTRN12620000919910.

Safety and efficacy of midline catheters versus peripheral intravenous catheters: A pilot randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite pervasive need for peripheral intravenous catheters, insertion is often difficult, and approximately two thirds fail prematurely. Midline catheters are an alternative long peripheral catheter, inserted in the upper arm, ideal for patients with difficult access. AIM: The aim of this study is to test feasibility of the protocol and compare the efficacy and safety of midline catheters to peripheral intravenous catheters. DESIGN: A parallel-group, pilot randomized controlled trial of adult medical/surgical hospitalized patients, from a single Australian referral hospital. METHODS: Participants with difficult vascular access (≤2 palpable veins) and/or anticipated ≥5 days of peripherally compatible intravenous therapy were recruited between May 2019 and March 2020. Participants were randomized to (1) peripheral intravenous catheter or (2) midline catheter. Primary feasibility outcome measured eligibility, recruitment, protocol adherence, retention and attrition. Primary clinical outcomes measured device insertion failure and post-insertion failure. RESULTS: In total, n = 143 participants (71 peripheral intravenous catheters and 72 midline catheters) were recruited; n = 139 were analysed. Most feasibility criteria were met. Peripheral intravenous catheters had shorter functional dwell time, with higher incidence of post-insertion failure compared to midline catheters. CONCLUSION: Midline catheters appear to be superior for patients with difficult vascular access or receiving prolonged intravenous therapy; a large, multi-centre trial to confirm findings is feasible.

A nurse-led intervention to reduce the incidence and duration of delirium among adults admitted to intensive care: A stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is an acute change in behaviour, characterised by a fluctuating course, inattention, and disorganised thinking. For critically ill adults in the intensive care, the incidence of delirium has been reported to be at least 30% and is associated with both short-term and long-term complications, longer hospital stay, increased risk of mortality, and long-term cognitive problems. AIM: The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a nurse-led delirium-prevention protocol in reducing the incidence and duration of delirium among adults admitted to intensive care. METHODS: A hybrid stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted to assess the effectiveness of the implementation and dissemination of the nurse-led intervention to reduce the incidence and duration of delirium among adults admitted to the four adults intensive care units in the southwest of Sydney, Australia. RESULTS: Between May 2019 and February 2020, over a 10-month period, 2618 admissions, among 2566 patients, were included in the study. After an initial 3-month baseline period, each month there was a random crossover to the nurse-led intervention in one of the four intensive care units, and by the 7th month of the trial, all units were exposed to the intervention for at least 3 months. The incidence of acute delirium was observed to be 10.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 9.1-12.4%), compared to 14.1% (95% CI = 12.2-16.2%) during the preintervention (baseline) period (adjusted rate ratio [adjRR] = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.57-1.08, p = 0.134). The average delirium-free-days for these preintervention and postintervention periods were 4.1 days (95% CI = 3.9-4.3) and 4.4 days (95% CI = 4.2-4.5), respectively (adjusted difference = 0.24 days [95% CI = -0.12 to 0.60], p = 0.199). CONCLUSION: Following the introduction of a nurse-led, nonpharmacological intervention to reduce the burden of delirium, among adults admitted to intensive care, we observed no statistically significant decrease in the incidence of delirium or the duration of delirium.

Peripheral intravenous catheters in the care of oncology and haematology patients.

Aim: To determine peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) characteristics, complications and risk factors among patients in cancer units. Methods: A secondary analysis of a global, cross-sectional study (127 hospitals in 24 countries). Participants (≥18 years) admitted to cancer units were assessed once for PIVC characteristics and the presence of complications. Variables included patient demographics, device characteristics, treatment details, and device and/or site complications. PIVC characteristics were presented using qualitative descriptors; mixed-effects logistic regression models determined risk factors for PIVC complications. Results: In total, 1,807 participants (1,812 PIVCs) were included; 12% (n=215) of PIVCs presented with complications. Risk factors included: insertion by doctors; insertion in ED and ambulance/other locations; poor PIVC dressing integrity; dwell time ≥49 hours; and administration of colloids/blood products and antiemetics. Conclusions: At least one in ten PIVCs in cancer units present with complications; regular PIVC assessment and improved dressing integrity is likely to reduce risk and improve outcomes.

Securing jugular central venous access devices with dressings fixed to a liquid adhesive in an intensive care unit population: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Central venous access devices (CVADs) can have high rates of failure due to dressing-related complications. CVADs placed in the internal jugular vein are at particular risk of dressing failure-related complications, including catheter-associated bloodstream infection and medical adhesive-related skin injury. Application of Mastisol liquid adhesive (MLA) may reduce CVAD dressing failure and associated complications, by reducing the frequency of dressing changes. The aim of this study is to investigate whether, in an intensive care unit (ICU) population, standard dressing care with or without the addition of MLA, improves internal jugular CVAD dressing adherence. METHODS: This two-arm, parallel group randomised controlled trial will be conducted in three Australian ICUs. A total of 160 patients (80 per group) will be enrolled in accordance with study inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients will be randomised to receive either (1) 'standard' (in accordance with local hospital policy) CVAD dressings (control) or (2) 'standard' dressings in addition to MLA (intervention). Patients will be followed from the time of CVAD insertion to 48 h after CVAD removal. The primary outcome is 'dressing failure' defined as requirement for initial CVAD dressing to be replaced prior to seven days (routine replacement). DISCUSSION: This study will be the first randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of MLA in the adult intensive care unit population and will also provide crucial data for patient-important outcomes such as infection and skin injury. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12621001012864 . Registered on 2 August 2021.

An introduction to Bayes' theorem and examples of its application to a diagnostic test and a clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The Bayesian approach to updating scientific knowledge involves using a probability distribution to describe a prior belief concerning an outcome of interest and combines this with some new information to create a posterior probability distribution to describe the updated current knowledge. AIM: To introduce the application of Bayes' theorem, using the conditional probability example of the Monty Hall problem and two examples of the clinical application of a Bayesian approach. DISCUSSION: Bayesian approaches enable the incorporation of prior knowledge into the interpretation of research findings and summaries of evidence to date. Bayesian approaches are being incorporated into most clinical trials. CONCLUSION: Bayesian approaches to interpreting the results of a diagnostic test and a clinical trial highlight the utility of these approaches to clinical nursing and the application of evidence-based practice. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Stimulation of an understanding and interest in the Bayesian approach among nurse researchers should lead to its wider application in nursing research.

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among nurses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis reports the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among nurses. BACKGROUND: With a growing body of literature reporting the positive serology for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among healthcare workers, it remains unclear whether staff at the point of direct patient care are more prone to developing and transmitting the virus. Given nurses make up the majority of the global health workforce, outbreaks among these workers could severely undermine a health system's capability to manage the pandemic. We aimed to summarise and report the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among nurses globally. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analyses. METHODS: This systematic review was developed, undertaken and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. We searched the electronic medical literature databases: MEDLINE; CINAHL; and EMBASE for studies reporting the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among nursing staff. Studies that reported nursing specific data were included in this review. Study quality was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for studies reporting prevalence data. Studies were stratified according to the World Health Organisation region classifications, and results were presented using forest plots and summary prevalence and variance was estimated using a random effects model. RESULTS: Our electronic search identified 1687 potential studies, of which 1148 were screened for eligibility after duplicates were removed, and 51 of the studies were included in our meta-analysis. The overall seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among nurses was estimated to be 8.1% (95% CI 6.9%-9.4%) among the 60,571 participants included in the studies. Seropositivity was highest in the African region (48.2%, 95% CI 39.2%-57.3%), followed by the European region (10.3%, 95% CI 8.0%-12.5%), the Region of the Americas (8.4%, 95% CI 6.0%-10.7%), the South-East Asia region (3.0%, 95% CI 0.00%-6.5%) and the Western Pacific region (0.5%, 95% CI 0.0%-1.0%). Pooled estimates were unable to be calculated in the Eastern Mediterranean region due to insufficient studies. CONCLUSION: The seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among nurses is comparable to other healthcare workers, and possibly similar to the general population. Early adoption and adherence to personal protective equipment and social distancing measures could explain these similarities, meaning the majority of staff contracted the virus through community transmission and not in a healthcare setting. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Fear and uncertainty have been features of this pandemic, including among nurses. This meta-analysis should provide some comfort to nurses that risks are similar to community exposure when adequate PPE is available and there is an adherence to infection control measures.

Effect of infusion set replacement intervals on catheter-related bloodstream infections (RSVP): a randomised, controlled, equivalence (central venous access device)-non-inferiority (peripheral arterial catheter) trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of infusion set use to prevent life-threatening catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) is unclear. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and costs of 7-day (intervention) versus 4-day (control) infusion set replacement to prevent CRBSI in patients with central venous access devices (tunnelled cuffed, non-tunnelled, peripherally inserted, and totally implanted) and peripheral arterial catheters. METHODS: We did a randomised, controlled, assessor-masked trial at ten Australian hospitals. Our hypothesis was CRBSI equivalence for central venous access devices and non-inferiority for peripheral arterial catheters (both 2% margin). Adults and children with expected greater than 24 h central venous access device-peripheral arterial catheter use were randomly assigned (1:1; stratified by hospital, catheter type, and intensive care unit or ward) by a centralised, web-based service (concealed before allocation) to infusion set replacement every 7 days, or 4 days. This included crystalloids, non-lipid parenteral nutrition, and medication infusions. Patients and clinicians were not masked, but the primary outcome (CRBSI) was adjudicated by masked infectious diseases physicians. The analysis was modified intention to treat (mITT). This study is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12610000505000 and is complete. FINDINGS: Between May 30, 2011, and Dec, 9, 2016, from 6007 patients assessed, we assigned 2944 patients to 7-day (n=1463) or 4-day (n=1481) infusion set replacement, with 2941 in the mITT analysis. For central venous access devices, 20 (1·78%) of 1124 patients (7-day group) and 16 (1·46%) of 1097 patients (4-day group) had CRBSI (absolute risk difference [ARD] 0·32%, 95% CI -0·73 to 1·37). For peripheral arterial catheters, one (0·28%) of 357 patients in the 7-day group and none of 363 patients in the 4-day group had CRBSI (ARD 0·28%, -0·27% to 0·83%). There were no treatment-related adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Infusion set use can be safely extended to 7 days with resultant cost and workload reductions. FUNDING: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Misclassification and measurement error - planning a study and interpreting results.

BACKGROUND: Measurement error must always be considered when planning a research project and interpreting its results. The accuracy of some data collected during a study can often be confidently assured, but more than one measurement or observer is needed to assess exposure and outcomes status in cases where clinical measurement is prone to measurement error. Little attention is paid in nursing research to misclassification and measurement error. Bias is often discussed in nursing research education, but not its potential consequences or measures that can be taken to improve the study's quality. AIM: To present examples of random measurement error - misclassification of a binary outcome - in a continuous exposure and outcomes variable, to address this gap in nurses' research training. DISCUSSION: The article discusses the relationship between exposure and outcome in the absence and presence of measurement error using risk (relative risk) and association using correlation. It provides methods to estimate the true value of these measures of risk and association, when only given the clinical measurements with errors. CONCLUSION: If the assumption of random error holds, attenuation of risk or association towards the null will occur. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Understanding the effect of measurement error including misclassification will enable researchers to interpret the results of their studies, and to take into consideration this potential error when planning and conducting a study.

Interpreting the results of clinical trials, embracing uncertainty: A Bayesian approach.

Most clinical trials use null hypothesis significance testing with frequentist statistical inference to report P values and confidence intervals for effect estimates. This method leads to a dichotomisation of results as 'significant' or 'non-significant'. A more nuanced interpretation may often be considered and in particular when the majority of the confidence interval for the effect estimate suggests benefit or harm. In contrast to the frequentist dichotomised approach based on a P value, the application of Bayesian statistics allocates credibility to a continuous spectrum of possibilities and for this reason a Bayesian approach to inference is often warranted as it will incorporate uncertainty when updating our current belief with information from a new trial. The use of Bayesian statistics is introduced in this paper for a hypothetical sepsis trial with worked examples in the R language for Statistical Computing environment and the open-source statistical software JASP. It is hoped that this general introduction to Bayesian inference stimulates some interest and confidence among clinicians to consider applying these methods to the interpretation of new evidence for interventions relevant to anaesthesia and intensive care medicine.