ArticleJournal of the Intensive Care Society2016
Finding a solution: Heparinised saline versus normal saline in the maintenance of invasive arterial lines in intensive care.
Article in Journal of the Intensive Care Society, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A low dose heparinized saline protocol is associated with improved duration of arterial line patency in critically ill COVID-19 patients.Journal of critical care · 2020Observational
- Article
- Heparinized Saline Solution vs. Saline Solution (0.9% Sodium Chloride) for the Maintenance of Dorsal Pedal Arterial Catheter Patency in Dogs Undergoing General Anesthesia: A Pilot Study.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2020Article
- Advantages of a Novel Device for Arterial Catheter Securement in Anesthetized Dogs: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2019Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe assessed the impact of heparinised saline versus 0.9% normal saline on arterial line patency. Maintaining the patency of arterial lines is essential for obtaining accurate physiological measurements, enabling blood sampling and minimising line replacement. Use of heparinised saline is associated with risks such as thrombocytopenia, haemorrhage and mis-selection. Historical studies draw variable conclusions but suggest that normal saline is at least as effective at maintaining line patency, although recent evidence has questioned this.
methodsWe conducted a prospective analysis of the use of heparinised saline versus normal saline on unselected patients in the intensive care of our hospital. Data concerning duration of 471 lines insertion and reason for removal was collected.
resultsWe found a higher risk of blockage for lines flushed with normal saline compared with heparinised saline (RR = 2.15, 95% CI 1.392-3.32,
conclusionsOur study demonstrates a clinically important reduction in arterial line longevity due to blockages when flushed with normal saline compared to heparinised saline. We have determined that these excess blockages have a significant clinical impact with further lines being inserted after blockage, resulting in increased risks to patients, wasted time and cost of resources. Our findings suggest that the current UK guidance favouring normal saline flushes should be reviewed.
Indexed as
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.