↓ Skip to main content

Fixation of the short-term central venous catheter. A comparison of two techniques1

Overview of attention for article published in Acta Cirúrgica Brasileira, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Fixation of the short-term central venous catheter. A comparison of two techniques1
Published in
Acta Cirúrgica Brasileira, August 2017
DOI 10.1590/s0102-865020170080000010
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mário Lúcio Marques Leal, Ana Beatriz Alkmim Teixeira Loyola, Alexandre Ciappina Hueb, José Dias da Silva, Marcos Mesquita, Luiz Francisley de Paiva, Mauricio Landulfo Jorge Guerrieri, João Paulo Nunes Fernandes, Artur Costa Barros, Lydia Masako Ferreira

Abstract

To compare the fixation of the central venous catheter (CVC) using two suture techniques. A clinical, analytical, interventional, longitudinal, prospective, controlled, single-blind and randomized study in adult, intensive care unit (ICU) patients. After admission and indication of CVC use, the patients were allocated to the Wing group (n = 35, catheter fixation with clamping wings and retainers) or Shoelace group (n = 35, catheter fixation using shoelace cross-tied sutures around the device). Displacement, kinking, fixation failure, hyperemia at the insertion site, purulent secretion, loss of the device, psychomotor agitation, mental confusion, and bacterial growth at the insertion site were evaluated. Compared with the Wing group, the Shoelace group had a lower occurrence of catheter displacement (n=0 versus n =4; p = 0.04), kinking (n=0 versus n=8; p=0.001), and fixation failure (n=2 versus n=8; p=0.018). No significant difference was found in bacterial growth (n=20 versus n=14; p=0.267) between groups. The Shoelace fixation technique presented fewer adverse events than the Wing fixation technique.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 17%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Student > Master 4 7%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 15 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 19%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 16 30%