住院病人皮下隧道植入外周置入中心导管与传统植入外周置入中心导管的比较(TUNNEL-PICC):一项多中心、开放标签、随机对照试验。

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
Eung Tae Kim, Jae Hwan Lee, Dong Jae Shim, Yohan Kwon, Soo Buem Cho, Ki Jun Kim, Doyoung Kim, Jinoo Kim, Eu Suk Kim, Hoyong Jun, Youn Jeong Kim, Jinyeong Kim, Eun Jin Kim, Chung-Jong Kim, Kang-Il Jun, Myoung Jin Shin, Chang Jin Yoon, Seungjae Lee, Soon-Young Song, Je Hwan Won
{"title":"住院病人皮下隧道植入外周置入中心导管与传统植入外周置入中心导管的比较(TUNNEL-PICC):一项多中心、开放标签、随机对照试验。","authors":"Eung Tae Kim, Jae Hwan Lee, Dong Jae Shim, Yohan Kwon, Soo Buem Cho, Ki Jun Kim, Doyoung Kim, Jinoo Kim, Eu Suk Kim, Hoyong Jun, Youn Jeong Kim, Jinyeong Kim, Eun Jin Kim, Chung-Jong Kim, Kang-Il Jun, Myoung Jin Shin, Chang Jin Yoon, Seungjae Lee, Soon-Young Song, Je Hwan Won","doi":"10.1016/j.jhin.2024.10.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to evaluate whether subcutaneous tunneling in peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) placement could reduce the occurrence of central-line associated blood stream infection (CLABSI).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an open-label, multicentre, randomized, controlled trial in five tertiary hospitals. Adult hospitalized patients requiring a PICC were randomized in a one-to-one ratio to conventional (cPICC) or tunneled PICC (tPICC) arms using a centralized web-based computer-generated stratified randomization. CLABSI rates between groups were compared in a modified intention-to-treat population. Safety including the incidence of exit-site infection or hemorrhage-associated catheter removal were also compared. This trial was registered with Clinical Research Information Service of Republic of Korea (KCT0005521).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From November 2020 to March 2023, 1,324 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to tPICC (n=662) and cPICC (n=662). This study was terminated early due to the cohort CLABSI rate being lower than estimated, therefore, the original sample size of 1,694 would render the study underpowered to detect a difference in CLABSI rates. In the tPICC, CLABSI occurred in 13 of 651 participants over 11,071 catheter-days (1.2/1,000 catheter-days), compared with 20 among 650 patients with cPICC over 11,141 catheter-days (1.8/1,000 catheter-days, rate ratio 0.65, 95% CI 0.30-1.38, p=0.30). The incidence of exit-site infection (29 tPICC, 36 cPICC, p=0.5) and hemorrhage-associated catheter removal (11 tPICC, 11 cPICC, p=0.99) was not different between both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Due to insufficient sample size, this study could not demonstrate a statistically significant CLABSI risk reduction in the tPICC group compared to the cPICC group. Both groups had similar rates of exit site infection and bleeding.</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Subcutaneous tunneling versus conventional insertion of peripherally inserted central catheters in hospitalized patients (TUNNEL-PICC): a multicentre, open-label, randomized, controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Eung Tae Kim, Jae Hwan Lee, Dong Jae Shim, Yohan Kwon, Soo Buem Cho, Ki Jun Kim, Doyoung Kim, Jinoo Kim, Eu Suk Kim, Hoyong Jun, Youn Jeong Kim, Jinyeong Kim, Eun Jin Kim, Chung-Jong Kim, Kang-Il Jun, Myoung Jin Shin, Chang Jin Yoon, Seungjae Lee, Soon-Young Song, Je Hwan Won\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jhin.2024.10.008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to evaluate whether subcutaneous tunneling in peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) placement could reduce the occurrence of central-line associated blood stream infection (CLABSI).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an open-label, multicentre, randomized, controlled trial in five tertiary hospitals. Adult hospitalized patients requiring a PICC were randomized in a one-to-one ratio to conventional (cPICC) or tunneled PICC (tPICC) arms using a centralized web-based computer-generated stratified randomization. CLABSI rates between groups were compared in a modified intention-to-treat population. Safety including the incidence of exit-site infection or hemorrhage-associated catheter removal were also compared. This trial was registered with Clinical Research Information Service of Republic of Korea (KCT0005521).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From November 2020 to March 2023, 1,324 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to tPICC (n=662) and cPICC (n=662). This study was terminated early due to the cohort CLABSI rate being lower than estimated, therefore, the original sample size of 1,694 would render the study underpowered to detect a difference in CLABSI rates. In the tPICC, CLABSI occurred in 13 of 651 participants over 11,071 catheter-days (1.2/1,000 catheter-days), compared with 20 among 650 patients with cPICC over 11,141 catheter-days (1.8/1,000 catheter-days, rate ratio 0.65, 95% CI 0.30-1.38, p=0.30). The incidence of exit-site infection (29 tPICC, 36 cPICC, p=0.5) and hemorrhage-associated catheter removal (11 tPICC, 11 cPICC, p=0.99) was not different between both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Due to insufficient sample size, this study could not demonstrate a statistically significant CLABSI risk reduction in the tPICC group compared to the cPICC group. Both groups had similar rates of exit site infection and bleeding.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":3,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2024.10.008\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2024.10.008","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的我们旨在评估在外周置入中心导管(PICC)置管过程中采用皮下隧道疗法能否减少中心管路相关血流感染(CLABSI)的发生:我们在五家三级医院开展了一项开放标签、多中心、随机对照试验。需要使用 PICC 的成人住院患者通过基于网络的集中计算机分层随机化,以一对一的比例被随机分配到传统 PICC(cPICC)或隧道式 PICC(tPICC)组。在改良的意向治疗人群中比较了各组之间的 CLABSI 发生率。同时还比较了安全性,包括出口感染或出血相关导管拔除的发生率。该试验已在大韩民国临床研究信息服务机构注册(KCT0005521):结果:2020年11月至2023年3月,1324名参与者被随机分配到tPICC(662人)和cPICC(662人)。由于队列 CLABSI 感染率低于估计值,这项研究提前结束,因此,原样本量 1,694 人将导致该研究检测 CLABSI 感染率差异的能力不足。在 tPICC 中,651 名参与者中有 13 人在 11,071 个导管日中发生了 CLABSI(1.2/1,000 个导管日),而在 650 名 cPICC 患者中有 20 人在 11,141 个导管日中发生了 CLABSI(1.8/1,000 个导管日,比率比 0.65,95% CI 0.30-1.38,p=0.30)。两组导管出口感染(29 tPICC,36 cPICC,P=0.5)和出血相关导管拔除(11 tPICC,11 cPICC,P=0.99)的发生率没有差异:结论:由于样本量不足,本研究无法证明与 cPICC 组相比,tPICC 组的 CLABSI 风险在统计学上有显著降低。两组的出口部位感染率和出血率相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Subcutaneous tunneling versus conventional insertion of peripherally inserted central catheters in hospitalized patients (TUNNEL-PICC): a multicentre, open-label, randomized, controlled trial.

Objective: We aimed to evaluate whether subcutaneous tunneling in peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) placement could reduce the occurrence of central-line associated blood stream infection (CLABSI).

Methods: We conducted an open-label, multicentre, randomized, controlled trial in five tertiary hospitals. Adult hospitalized patients requiring a PICC were randomized in a one-to-one ratio to conventional (cPICC) or tunneled PICC (tPICC) arms using a centralized web-based computer-generated stratified randomization. CLABSI rates between groups were compared in a modified intention-to-treat population. Safety including the incidence of exit-site infection or hemorrhage-associated catheter removal were also compared. This trial was registered with Clinical Research Information Service of Republic of Korea (KCT0005521).

Results: From November 2020 to March 2023, 1,324 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to tPICC (n=662) and cPICC (n=662). This study was terminated early due to the cohort CLABSI rate being lower than estimated, therefore, the original sample size of 1,694 would render the study underpowered to detect a difference in CLABSI rates. In the tPICC, CLABSI occurred in 13 of 651 participants over 11,071 catheter-days (1.2/1,000 catheter-days), compared with 20 among 650 patients with cPICC over 11,141 catheter-days (1.8/1,000 catheter-days, rate ratio 0.65, 95% CI 0.30-1.38, p=0.30). The incidence of exit-site infection (29 tPICC, 36 cPICC, p=0.5) and hemorrhage-associated catheter removal (11 tPICC, 11 cPICC, p=0.99) was not different between both groups.

Conclusion: Due to insufficient sample size, this study could not demonstrate a statistically significant CLABSI risk reduction in the tPICC group compared to the cPICC group. Both groups had similar rates of exit site infection and bleeding.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
×
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