{"title":"一项随机临床试验:比较脉动和连续冲洗对外周静脉导管通畅时间和类型的影响。","authors":"Seyed Javad Hosseini, Fereshteh Eidy, Majid Kianmehr, Ali Asghar Firouzian, Fatemeh Hajiabadi, Mahmoud Marhamati, Mahbobeh Firooz","doi":"10.34172/jcs.2021.016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> Peripheral intravenous catheters (PICs) patency techniques such as flushing are being developed. According to some studies, flushing can be used continuously or in pulsatile forms. This study aimed to compare the effects of pulsatile flushing (PF) and continuous flushing (CF) on time and type of PICs patency. <b>Methods:</b> In this double-blind randomized clinical trial, 71 patients were randomly assigned into two groups of PF (n=35) and CF (n=36). The PF protocol was performed as successive injections of 1 mL normal saline (N/S) per second (sec) with a delay of less than 1 sec until the completion of 5 mL of solution. However, CF protocol was performed by injecting 5 mL N/S within 5 sec without any delay before and after each medicine administration. Data related to the time and type of PICs patency were collected using a patency checklist every 12 hours (h) up to 96 h. The statistical analysis was done by R statistical software (Version 3.5.1). <b>Results:</b> The results showed that the number of PICs remaining open was not significantly different between PF and CF groups during 96 h. The highest number of PICs excluded from the study was related to the time of 96 h as a result of partial patency in the two groups. <b>Conclusion:</b> There was no difference between CF and PF regarding the time and type of PICs patency. Thus, both techniques can be used to maintain the catheter patency.</p>","PeriodicalId":15317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Caring Sciences","volume":"10 2","pages":"84-88"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/17/e3/jcs-10-84.PMC8242293.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the Effects of Pulsatile and Continuous Flushing on Time and Type of Peripheral Intravenous Catheters Patency: A Randomized Clinical Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Seyed Javad Hosseini, Fereshteh Eidy, Majid Kianmehr, Ali Asghar Firouzian, Fatemeh Hajiabadi, Mahmoud Marhamati, Mahbobeh Firooz\",\"doi\":\"10.34172/jcs.2021.016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> Peripheral intravenous catheters (PICs) patency techniques such as flushing are being developed. According to some studies, flushing can be used continuously or in pulsatile forms. This study aimed to compare the effects of pulsatile flushing (PF) and continuous flushing (CF) on time and type of PICs patency. <b>Methods:</b> In this double-blind randomized clinical trial, 71 patients were randomly assigned into two groups of PF (n=35) and CF (n=36). The PF protocol was performed as successive injections of 1 mL normal saline (N/S) per second (sec) with a delay of less than 1 sec until the completion of 5 mL of solution. However, CF protocol was performed by injecting 5 mL N/S within 5 sec without any delay before and after each medicine administration. Data related to the time and type of PICs patency were collected using a patency checklist every 12 hours (h) up to 96 h. The statistical analysis was done by R statistical software (Version 3.5.1). <b>Results:</b> The results showed that the number of PICs remaining open was not significantly different between PF and CF groups during 96 h. The highest number of PICs excluded from the study was related to the time of 96 h as a result of partial patency in the two groups. <b>Conclusion:</b> There was no difference between CF and PF regarding the time and type of PICs patency. Thus, both techniques can be used to maintain the catheter patency.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15317,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Caring Sciences\",\"volume\":\"10 2\",\"pages\":\"84-88\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/17/e3/jcs-10-84.PMC8242293.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Caring Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.34172/jcs.2021.016\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/5/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Caring Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34172/jcs.2021.016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/5/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
导言:外周静脉导管(PICs)的开放技术,如冲洗正在发展。根据一些研究,冲洗可以连续使用或以脉动形式使用。本研究旨在比较搏动冲洗(PF)和连续冲洗(CF)对PICs通畅时间和类型的影响。方法:采用双盲随机临床试验,将71例患者随机分为PF组(35例)和CF组(36例)。PF方案以每秒(秒)连续注射1ml生理盐水(N/S)的方式进行,延迟时间小于1秒,直到完成5ml溶液。CF方案为每次给药前后5秒内无延迟注射5 mL N/S。每12小时(h)至96小时使用通畅检查表收集PICs通畅时间和类型相关数据。采用R统计软件(版本3.5.1)进行统计分析。结果:结果显示,PF组和CF组在96 h内保持开放的PICs数量无显著差异。由于两组的PICs部分开放,因此排除在研究之外的PICs数量最多,与96 h的时间有关。结论:CF与PF在PICs通畅的时间和类型上无明显差异。因此,两种技术均可用于维持导管通畅。
Comparing the Effects of Pulsatile and Continuous Flushing on Time and Type of Peripheral Intravenous Catheters Patency: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Introduction: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PICs) patency techniques such as flushing are being developed. According to some studies, flushing can be used continuously or in pulsatile forms. This study aimed to compare the effects of pulsatile flushing (PF) and continuous flushing (CF) on time and type of PICs patency. Methods: In this double-blind randomized clinical trial, 71 patients were randomly assigned into two groups of PF (n=35) and CF (n=36). The PF protocol was performed as successive injections of 1 mL normal saline (N/S) per second (sec) with a delay of less than 1 sec until the completion of 5 mL of solution. However, CF protocol was performed by injecting 5 mL N/S within 5 sec without any delay before and after each medicine administration. Data related to the time and type of PICs patency were collected using a patency checklist every 12 hours (h) up to 96 h. The statistical analysis was done by R statistical software (Version 3.5.1). Results: The results showed that the number of PICs remaining open was not significantly different between PF and CF groups during 96 h. The highest number of PICs excluded from the study was related to the time of 96 h as a result of partial patency in the two groups. Conclusion: There was no difference between CF and PF regarding the time and type of PICs patency. Thus, both techniques can be used to maintain the catheter patency.