ArticleIntensive care medicine experimental2014
A simple and easy in vitro model to test the efficacy of IV lines' needleless connectors against contamination.
Article in Intensive care medicine experimental, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Tego™ needleless connector for hemodialysis catheters may protect against catheter colonization.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHub colonization after manipulation is responsible for 29% to 60% of catheter-related bloodstream infections (C-RBSI). Prevention can be achieved by the use of hub connectors, but its efficacy is generally based on instillation of high concentrations of microorganisms, which do not reflect the real contamination in daily practice. Our purpose was to create an in vitro model lasting long enough to be used for the comparison of the efficacy between various connectors against contamination simulating the real daily handling.
methodsThe model consisted of 40 blood culture bottles with an inserted cannula with a needle-free closed connector. Twice a day, each line was manipulated while instilling 1 mL of two different fluids (saline and propofol). We manipulated the bottles as follows: ten bottles with clean gloves and disinfecting connectors with alcohol (controls), ten bottles with hands (no gloves), ten bottles with gloves impregnated with a 0.5 McFarland (MF) solution of Staphylococcus aureus (SA), and ten bottles with gloves impregnated with a 0.05 MF solution of SA. The bottles were incubated in a BACTEC System at 37°C under continuous agitation up to 10 days. When a bottle turned positive, 100 μL of the fluid was cultured and incubated followed by microorganism identification using standard procedures.
resultsOverall, all bottles in the control group were negative at the end of the incubation time. In the three contamination experiments, almost all (38/40) bottles were positive during the incubation time. We only found differences regarding the median time to positivity (interquartile range (IQR)) between saline and propofol in the manipulation with SA 0.05 MF: 240 h (154.82 to 360.00) vs. 66 h (58.01 to 69.11), p = 0.008.
conclusionsA daily connector handling with 0.05 McFarland S. aureus solution while instilling saline proved to be a useful model lasting long enough to be used for the comparison of the efficacy of different types of closed needleless connectors against contamination.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.