Practice of Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Flushing in Australia and New Zealand: Multi-Center Cross-Sectional Survey.

Yeoungjee Cho, Neil Boudville, Suetonia C Palmer, Josephine S F Chow, Carmel M Hawley, Matthew D Jose, Rob MacGinley, Louis Huang, Jo-Anne Moodie, Thu Nguyen, Laura Robison, Jeffrey Wong, David W Johnson
{"title":"Practice of Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Flushing in Australia and New Zealand: Multi-Center Cross-Sectional Survey.","authors":"Yeoungjee Cho,&nbsp;Neil Boudville,&nbsp;Suetonia C Palmer,&nbsp;Josephine S F Chow,&nbsp;Carmel M Hawley,&nbsp;Matthew D Jose,&nbsp;Rob MacGinley,&nbsp;Louis Huang,&nbsp;Jo-Anne Moodie,&nbsp;Thu Nguyen,&nbsp;Laura Robison,&nbsp;Jeffrey Wong,&nbsp;David W Johnson","doi":"10.3747/pdi.2017.00108","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Evidence of effective interventions to prevent peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter malfunction before first use is presently insufficient to guide clinical care. Regular flushing of the PD catheter (e.g. before PD commencement) has been adopted by some practitioners in the belief that it will prevent catheter obstruction and/or malfunction. The aim of this study was to characterize and evaluate PD catheter flushing practices across Australian and New Zealand PD units.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An on-line survey was distributed to all 62 PD units in Australia (12 August 2016; <i>n</i> = 51) and New Zealand (2 February 2017; <i>n</i> = 11), with questions relating to PD catheter flushing practices, audit, and outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-nine units of variable size (< 16 to > 100 patients) completed the survey (79% response rate). All centers flushed PD catheters at some stage after insertion as routine unit practice. Forty-one units (84%) routinely flushed during periods of PD rest at varying intervals ranging from alternate daily to monthly. The type and volume of solution used to flush varied between units. Units that practised routine flushing of PD catheters were almost twice as likely to audit their catheter-related outcomes (66% vs 38%, <i>p</i> = 0.23) and more likely to have reported blocked catheters in the preceding 12 months (84% vs 0%, <i>p</i> = 0.01) compared with those units that did not routinely flush PD catheters. Thirty units (61%) regularly audited and monitored catheter-related outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study identified a wide variation in center practices relating to PD catheter flushing. Drawing conclusions about any relationship between flushing practices and clinical outcomes was impeded by the relatively low uptake of regular auditing and monitoring of catheter-related outcomes across surveyed units. Evaluation of the benefits and harms of standardized PD catheter flushing practices on patient outcomes in a randomized trial is needed to guide practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":519220,"journal":{"name":"Peritoneal Dialysis International: Journal of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis","volume":" ","pages":"98-103"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3747/pdi.2017.00108","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Peritoneal Dialysis International: Journal of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3747/pdi.2017.00108","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/11/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Background: Evidence of effective interventions to prevent peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter malfunction before first use is presently insufficient to guide clinical care. Regular flushing of the PD catheter (e.g. before PD commencement) has been adopted by some practitioners in the belief that it will prevent catheter obstruction and/or malfunction. The aim of this study was to characterize and evaluate PD catheter flushing practices across Australian and New Zealand PD units.

Methods: An on-line survey was distributed to all 62 PD units in Australia (12 August 2016; n = 51) and New Zealand (2 February 2017; n = 11), with questions relating to PD catheter flushing practices, audit, and outcomes.

Results: Forty-nine units of variable size (< 16 to > 100 patients) completed the survey (79% response rate). All centers flushed PD catheters at some stage after insertion as routine unit practice. Forty-one units (84%) routinely flushed during periods of PD rest at varying intervals ranging from alternate daily to monthly. The type and volume of solution used to flush varied between units. Units that practised routine flushing of PD catheters were almost twice as likely to audit their catheter-related outcomes (66% vs 38%, p = 0.23) and more likely to have reported blocked catheters in the preceding 12 months (84% vs 0%, p = 0.01) compared with those units that did not routinely flush PD catheters. Thirty units (61%) regularly audited and monitored catheter-related outcomes.

Conclusions: This study identified a wide variation in center practices relating to PD catheter flushing. Drawing conclusions about any relationship between flushing practices and clinical outcomes was impeded by the relatively low uptake of regular auditing and monitoring of catheter-related outcomes across surveyed units. Evaluation of the benefits and harms of standardized PD catheter flushing practices on patient outcomes in a randomized trial is needed to guide practice.

澳大利亚和新西兰腹膜透析导管冲洗的实践:多中心横断面调查。
背景:预防腹膜透析(PD)导管首次使用前故障的有效干预证据目前不足以指导临床护理。部分执业医生已采用定期冲洗腹膜透析导管(例如在腹膜透析开始前),因为他们相信这样可以防止导管阻塞及/或失灵。本研究的目的是描述和评估澳大利亚和新西兰PD单位的PD导管冲洗做法。方法:对澳大利亚所有62家PD单位进行在线调查(2016年8月12日;n = 51)和新西兰(2017年2月2日;n = 11),有关于PD导管冲洗方法、审计和结果的问题。结果:49个不同大小的单位(< 16至> 100例患者)完成了调查(79%的有效率)。作为常规单位实践,所有中心在插入PD导管后的某个阶段冲洗PD导管。41个单位(84%)在PD休息期间以不同的间隔(从隔天到每月)常规冲洗。用于冲洗的溶液的类型和体积因单位而异。与没有常规冲洗PD导管的单位相比,常规冲洗PD导管的单位几乎有两倍的可能性审计其导管相关结果(66%对38%,p = 0.23),并且在过去12个月内更有可能报告导管阻塞(84%对0%,p = 0.01)。30个单位(61%)定期审核和监测导管相关结果。结论:本研究确定了与PD导管冲洗相关的中心实践存在很大差异。在被调查的单位中,对导管相关结果的定期审计和监测相对较低,阻碍了对冲洗做法与临床结果之间的任何关系得出结论。需要在随机试验中评估标准化PD导管冲洗对患者预后的利弊,以指导实践。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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