Flushing Strategies for Totally Implantable Venous Access Devices in Nurse-Led Cancer Care: Exploratory Randomized Clinical Trial.

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING
Nursing Open Pub Date : 2026-10-01 DOI:10.1002/nop2.70942
Chi-Jia Ho, Jason Chia-Hsun Hsieh, Hui Grace Xu, Chieh-Ching Yen, Hsuan-Chih Kuo, Chih-Ting Chou, Li-Chin Chen, Bo-Cyuan Wang
{"title":"Flushing Strategies for Totally Implantable Venous Access Devices in Nurse-Led Cancer Care: Exploratory Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Chi-Jia Ho, Jason Chia-Hsun Hsieh, Hui Grace Xu, Chieh-Ching Yen, Hsuan-Chih Kuo, Chih-Ting Chou, Li-Chin Chen, Bo-Cyuan Wang","doi":"10.1002/nop2.70942","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim (s): </strong>To examine catheter-related complications across different flushing strategies for totally implantable venous access devices when care is delivered through a standardized, nurse-led, protocol-driven framework.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A single-center, prospective, exploratory, randomized, single-blind, three-arm parallel-group clinical trial.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 192 participants, catheter-related complications were rare across all groups. One occlusion occurred in the 10 mL saline group, no occlusions occurred in the 20 mL saline or heparin lock groups, minor bleeding occurred in three participants, and no catheter-related bloodstream infections or severe adverse events were reported. The very low number of events precluded meaningful comparative inference between flushing strategies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Within a standardized, nurse-led catheter care framework, complication rates were uniformly low regardless of flushing strategy. These exploratory findings do not establish equivalence or comparative effectiveness between flushing strategies.</p><p><strong>Implications for the profession and/or patient care: </strong>For oncology nursing practice, these findings support continued emphasis on standardized, protocol-driven catheter care, competency-based nurse training, and adherence monitoring; they do not establish that saline can replace heparin.</p><p><strong>Impact: </strong>This study addresses uncertainty about catheter outcomes under different flushing strategies in standardized nursing care. The main finding was uniformly low complication rates across groups. The findings may inform oncology nursing practice, catheter care standardization, and future trial design.</p><p><strong>Reporting method: </strong>This study was reported in accordance with the CONSORT 2025 statement and relevant extensions.</p><p><strong>No patient or public contribution: </strong>Patients and members of the public were not involved in the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, or preparation of this manuscript because the study evaluated a protocol-driven inpatient catheter care procedure delivered within routine oncology nursing practice.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05707936 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05707936).</p>","PeriodicalId":48570,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Open","volume":"13 10","pages":"e70942"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13675516/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.70942","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim (s): To examine catheter-related complications across different flushing strategies for totally implantable venous access devices when care is delivered through a standardized, nurse-led, protocol-driven framework.

Design: A single-center, prospective, exploratory, randomized, single-blind, three-arm parallel-group clinical trial.

Results: Among 192 participants, catheter-related complications were rare across all groups. One occlusion occurred in the 10 mL saline group, no occlusions occurred in the 20 mL saline or heparin lock groups, minor bleeding occurred in three participants, and no catheter-related bloodstream infections or severe adverse events were reported. The very low number of events precluded meaningful comparative inference between flushing strategies.

Conclusion: Within a standardized, nurse-led catheter care framework, complication rates were uniformly low regardless of flushing strategy. These exploratory findings do not establish equivalence or comparative effectiveness between flushing strategies.

Implications for the profession and/or patient care: For oncology nursing practice, these findings support continued emphasis on standardized, protocol-driven catheter care, competency-based nurse training, and adherence monitoring; they do not establish that saline can replace heparin.

Impact: This study addresses uncertainty about catheter outcomes under different flushing strategies in standardized nursing care. The main finding was uniformly low complication rates across groups. The findings may inform oncology nursing practice, catheter care standardization, and future trial design.

Reporting method: This study was reported in accordance with the CONSORT 2025 statement and relevant extensions.

No patient or public contribution: Patients and members of the public were not involved in the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, or preparation of this manuscript because the study evaluated a protocol-driven inpatient catheter care procedure delivered within routine oncology nursing practice.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05707936 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05707936).

在护士主导的癌症护理中,全植入式静脉通路装置的冲洗策略:探索性随机临床试验。
目的:通过标准化、护士主导、协议驱动的框架进行护理,研究完全植入式静脉通路装置不同冲洗策略的导管相关并发症。设计:单中心、前瞻性、探索性、随机、单盲、三组平行临床试验。结果:在192名参与者中,导管相关并发症在所有组中都很少见。10 mL生理盐水组发生1例闭塞,20 mL生理盐水组和肝素锁药组均未发生闭塞,3例受试者发生轻度出血,无导管相关血流感染或严重不良事件报告。非常低的事件数量排除了冲洗策略之间有意义的比较推断。结论:在标准化的、护士主导的导管护理框架中,无论采用何种冲洗策略,并发症发生率均较低。这些探索性发现并没有建立冲洗策略之间的等效性或比较有效性。对专业和/或患者护理的影响:对于肿瘤护理实践,这些发现支持继续强调标准化,协议驱动的导管护理,基于能力的护士培训和依从性监测;他们没有证实生理盐水可以代替肝素。影响:本研究解决了标准化护理中不同冲洗策略下导管结果的不确定性。主要发现是各组的并发症发生率一致较低。研究结果可为肿瘤护理实践、导管护理标准化和未来试验设计提供参考。报告方法:本研究按照CONSORT 2025声明和相关扩展进行报告。无患者或公众贡献:患者和公众成员未参与本文的设计、实施、分析、解释或准备,因为该研究评估了在常规肿瘤学护理实践中提供的方案驱动的住院导管护理程序。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05707936 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05707936)。
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
Nursing Open
Nursing Open Nursing-General Nursing
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.30%
发文量
298
审稿时长
17 weeks
期刊介绍: Nursing Open is a peer reviewed open access journal that welcomes articles on all aspects of nursing and midwifery practice, research, education and policy. We aim to publish articles that contribute to the art and science of nursing and which have a positive impact on health either locally, nationally, regionally or globally
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书