Use of tissue adhesive for neonatal intravenous access devices: A scoping review.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 PEDIATRICS
European Journal of Pediatrics Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-05 DOI:10.1007/s00431-024-05800-3
Sabrina de Souza, Mari Takashima, Thiago Lopes Silva, Linda Nugyen, Tricia M Kleidon, Luke Jardine, Tim R Dargaville, Amanda Ullman, Deanne August, Patricia Kuerten Rocha
{"title":"Use of tissue adhesive for neonatal intravenous access devices: A scoping review.","authors":"Sabrina de Souza, Mari Takashima, Thiago Lopes Silva, Linda Nugyen, Tricia M Kleidon, Luke Jardine, Tim R Dargaville, Amanda Ullman, Deanne August, Patricia Kuerten Rocha","doi":"10.1007/s00431-024-05800-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Neonates often require vascular access devices for medication or fluid therapy, but a third of devices fail before treatment completion or end with a complication. For adults and children, securing these devices with tissue adhesive (TA) increases the dwell and reduces complications. However, there is a lack of evidence for the neonatal population. This scoping review aimed to assess the evidence of TA for vascular access devices in neonates. The Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) framework was used. The inclusion criteria covered studies published from 2007 (when TA was first reported for use in vascular access devices) to June 2024, available in English, Portuguese, and Spanish, across six databases. Two independent reviewers assessed the studies using Covidence software, with a third reviewer resolving conflicts. Quality assessment was performed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. From 981 identified studies, 12 were included. Most studies (n = 5, 41.7%) enrolled between 100 and 500 neonates with vascular access devices. Publications originated from four regions and were observational studies (n = 6, 50%), quasi-experimental (n = 3, 25%), and case series (n = 2, 16.7%) with one randomized controlled trial (8.3%) focusing on umbilical venous catheters (UVC). The most common TA composition used was a combination of n-butyl- and 2-octyl- cyanoacrylate (n = 4, 33.3%). The amount of TA applied varied across studies, and often TA was part of a bundle (n = 7, 58.3%). Most studies applied TA to central venous access devices (n = 10, 83.3%) and 2 (16.7%) in peripheral devices. Although there was variation in device failure, the studies generally indicated a reduction in complications such as dislodgment (central catheter: 11.3% [peripherally inserted central catheter {PICC}] to 24.6% [UVC] in non-TA group vs 0.7% [PICC] to 7.7% [UVC] in TA group), device-associated bloodstream infections (central: 7.7% [UVC] and incidence of 2.76/1000 catheter days [PICC] in non-TA group vs 3.1% [UVC] and incidence of 0.99/1000 catheter day [PICC] in TA group), and phlebitis (13% in non-TA group vs 3% in TA-group), as well as increased dwell time in peripheral catheters. Most studies included both term and preterm neonates but did not differentiate between them in their analyses. Skin assessment, life of first dressing, and follow-up of catheters and patients were not reported in most studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>TA may reduce complications in vascular access devices, but the evidence in neonates is limited and varied. Many studies include TA as part of bundle, making it difficult to isolate its effects. Additionally, the current evidence lacks robustness due to the design limitations of the studies. Future research should focus on randomized controlled trials to evaluate TA's effectiveness and safety in preventing device failures and complications in neonates, considering different subgroups, to ensure the safety of TA in these nuanced populations.</p><p><strong>What is known: </strong>• Research in adults and pediatrics provides evidence supporting the use of tissue adhesive (TA) for vascular access devices, showing a positive impact in reducing failures and complications. • The use of TA in neonates needs to be carefully considered due to their unique characteristics.</p><p><strong>What is new: </strong>• There is a gap in the literature on the use of TA for securing vascular access devices in neonates, particularly regarding its safety and effectiveness in preventing failures and complications. • Further studies are needed to provide robust evidence verifying the effectiveness and safety of TA in this population.</p>","PeriodicalId":11997,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Pediatrics","volume":" ","pages":"5103-5112"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11527952/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-024-05800-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Neonates often require vascular access devices for medication or fluid therapy, but a third of devices fail before treatment completion or end with a complication. For adults and children, securing these devices with tissue adhesive (TA) increases the dwell and reduces complications. However, there is a lack of evidence for the neonatal population. This scoping review aimed to assess the evidence of TA for vascular access devices in neonates. The Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) framework was used. The inclusion criteria covered studies published from 2007 (when TA was first reported for use in vascular access devices) to June 2024, available in English, Portuguese, and Spanish, across six databases. Two independent reviewers assessed the studies using Covidence software, with a third reviewer resolving conflicts. Quality assessment was performed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. From 981 identified studies, 12 were included. Most studies (n = 5, 41.7%) enrolled between 100 and 500 neonates with vascular access devices. Publications originated from four regions and were observational studies (n = 6, 50%), quasi-experimental (n = 3, 25%), and case series (n = 2, 16.7%) with one randomized controlled trial (8.3%) focusing on umbilical venous catheters (UVC). The most common TA composition used was a combination of n-butyl- and 2-octyl- cyanoacrylate (n = 4, 33.3%). The amount of TA applied varied across studies, and often TA was part of a bundle (n = 7, 58.3%). Most studies applied TA to central venous access devices (n = 10, 83.3%) and 2 (16.7%) in peripheral devices. Although there was variation in device failure, the studies generally indicated a reduction in complications such as dislodgment (central catheter: 11.3% [peripherally inserted central catheter {PICC}] to 24.6% [UVC] in non-TA group vs 0.7% [PICC] to 7.7% [UVC] in TA group), device-associated bloodstream infections (central: 7.7% [UVC] and incidence of 2.76/1000 catheter days [PICC] in non-TA group vs 3.1% [UVC] and incidence of 0.99/1000 catheter day [PICC] in TA group), and phlebitis (13% in non-TA group vs 3% in TA-group), as well as increased dwell time in peripheral catheters. Most studies included both term and preterm neonates but did not differentiate between them in their analyses. Skin assessment, life of first dressing, and follow-up of catheters and patients were not reported in most studies.

Conclusion: TA may reduce complications in vascular access devices, but the evidence in neonates is limited and varied. Many studies include TA as part of bundle, making it difficult to isolate its effects. Additionally, the current evidence lacks robustness due to the design limitations of the studies. Future research should focus on randomized controlled trials to evaluate TA's effectiveness and safety in preventing device failures and complications in neonates, considering different subgroups, to ensure the safety of TA in these nuanced populations.

What is known: • Research in adults and pediatrics provides evidence supporting the use of tissue adhesive (TA) for vascular access devices, showing a positive impact in reducing failures and complications. • The use of TA in neonates needs to be carefully considered due to their unique characteristics.

What is new: • There is a gap in the literature on the use of TA for securing vascular access devices in neonates, particularly regarding its safety and effectiveness in preventing failures and complications. • Further studies are needed to provide robust evidence verifying the effectiveness and safety of TA in this population.

新生儿静脉通路装置中组织粘合剂的使用:范围综述。
新生儿通常需要血管通路装置来进行药物或液体治疗,但有三分之一的装置在治疗完成前就已失效或以并发症告终。对于成人和儿童来说,用组织粘合剂(TA)固定这些装置可增加其停留时间并减少并发症。然而,目前还缺乏针对新生儿的证据。本次范围界定综述旨在评估新生儿血管通路装置使用 TA 的证据。采用了 Arksey 和 O'Malley(2005 年)的框架。纳入标准涵盖了从 2007 年(TA 首次被报道用于血管通路设备)到 2024 年 6 月期间发表的研究,这些研究以英语、葡萄牙语和西班牙语在六个数据库中提供。两位独立审稿人使用 Covidence 软件对研究进行评估,第三位审稿人负责解决冲突。质量评估采用混合方法评估工具进行。在 981 项确定的研究中,有 12 项被纳入。大多数研究(n = 5,41.7%)招募了 100 到 500 名使用血管通路装置的新生儿。研究文献来自四个地区,包括观察性研究(6 项,占 50%)、准实验性研究(3 项,占 25%)和病例系列研究(2 项,占 16.7%),其中一项随机对照试验(8.3%)侧重于脐静脉导管 (UVC)。最常用的 TA 成分是氰基丙烯酸正丁酯和 2-辛酯的组合(4,33.3%)。不同研究使用的 TA 量各不相同,TA 通常是捆绑的一部分(7 项,58.3%)。大多数研究将 TA 用于中心静脉通路设备(10 项,83.3%),2 项(16.7%)用于外周设备。虽然器械故障率存在差异,但这些研究普遍表明并发症有所减少,如脱落(中心导管:非 TA 组为 11.3% [外周插入中心导管 {PICC}] 至 24.6% [UVC],TA 组为 0.7% [PICC] 至 7.7% [UVC])、器械相关血流感染(中心导管:7.7%[UVC],发生率为 2.76/1000 个导管日 [PICC];TA 组为 3.1%[UVC],发生率为 0.99/1000 个导管日 [PICC])、静脉炎(非 TA 组为 13%,TA 组为 3%)以及外周导管停留时间延长。大多数研究同时纳入了足月儿和早产儿,但在分析中并未对两者加以区分。大多数研究未报告皮肤评估、首次敷料寿命以及导管和患者的随访情况:结论:TA 可减少血管通路装置的并发症,但新生儿方面的证据有限,且不尽相同。许多研究将 TA 作为捆绑治疗的一部分,因此很难将其效果单独列出。此外,由于研究设计的局限性,目前的证据缺乏稳健性。未来的研究应侧重于随机对照试验,以评估 TA 在预防新生儿器械故障和并发症方面的有效性和安全性,同时考虑不同的亚组,以确保 TA 在这些细微人群中的安全性:- 已知信息:成人和儿科研究为血管通路设备使用组织粘合剂(TA)提供了证据支持,显示其对减少设备故障和并发症有积极影响。- 由于新生儿的特殊性,在新生儿中使用组织粘合剂需要慎重考虑:- 关于新生儿使用TA固定血管通路装置的文献尚存在空白,尤其是关于TA在预防失败和并发症方面的安全性和有效性。- 我们需要进一步的研究来提供可靠的证据,验证TA在这一人群中的有效性和安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
2.80%
发文量
367
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Pediatrics (EJPE) is a leading peer-reviewed medical journal which covers the entire field of pediatrics. The editors encourage authors to submit original articles, reviews, short communications, and correspondence on all relevant themes and topics. EJPE is particularly committed to the publication of articles on important new clinical research that will have an immediate impact on clinical pediatric practice. The editorial office very much welcomes ideas for publications, whether individual articles or article series, that fit this goal and is always willing to address inquiries from authors regarding potential submissions. Invited review articles on clinical pediatrics that provide comprehensive coverage of a subject of importance are also regularly commissioned. The short publication time reflects both the commitment of the editors and publishers and their passion for new developments in the field of pediatrics. EJPE is active on social media (@EurJPediatrics) and we invite you to participate. EJPE is the official journal of the European Academy of Paediatrics (EAP) and publishes guidelines and statements in cooperation with the EAP.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信