|| Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid
To improve jugular central venous access device (CVAD) securement, prevent CVAD failure (composite: dislodgement, occlusion, breakage, local or bloodstream infection), and assess subsequent trial feasibility.Study design was a 4-arm, parallel, randomized, controlled, nonblinded, pilot trial. Patients received CVAD securement with (i) suture + bordered polyurethane (suture + BPU; control), (ii) suture + absorbent dressing (suture + AD), (iii) sutureless securement device + simple polyurethane (SSD + SPU), or (iv) tissue adhesive + simple polyurethane (TA + SPU). Midtrial, due to safety, the TA + SPU intervention was replaced with a suture + TA + SPU group.A total of 221 patients were randomized with 2 postrandomization exclusions. Central venous access device failure was as follows: suture + BPU controls, 2 (4%) of 55 (0.52/1000 hours); suture + AD, 1 (2%) of 56 (0.26/1000 hours, P = .560); SSD + SPU, 4 (7%) of 55 (1.04/1000 hours, P = .417); TA + SPU, 4 (17%) of 23 (2.53/1000 hours, P = .049); and suture + TA + SPU, 0 (0%) of 30 (P = .263; intention-to-treat, log-rank tests). Central venous access device failure was predicted (P < .05) by baseline poor/fair skin integrity (hazard ratio, 9.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-79.9) or impaired mental state at CVAD removal (hazard ratio, 14.2; 95% confidence interval, 3.0-68.4).Jugular CVAD securement is challenging in postcardiac surgical patients who are coagulopathic and mobilized early. TA + SPU was ineffective for CVAD securement and is not recommended. Suture + TA + SPU appeared promising, with zero CVAD failure observed. Future trials should resolve uncertainty about the comparative effect of suture + TA + SPU, suture + AD, and SSD + SPU vs suture + BPU.