ArticlePeerJ2019
Comparison of heparinized saline and 0.9% sodium chloride for maintaining central venous catheter patency in healthy dogs.
Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Placement, management and complications associated with peripheral intravenous catheter use in UK small animal practice.The Journal of small animal practice · 2025Article
- The standards of reporting trials in pets (PetSORT): Explanation and elaboration.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023Article
- 2022 Update of the Consensus on the Rational Use of Antithrombotics and Thrombolytics in Veterinary Critical Care (CURATIVE) Domain 1- Defining populations at risk.Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to determine whether heparinized saline (HS) would be more effective in maintaining the patency of central venous catheters (CVCs) in dogs compared to 0.9% sodium chloride. This was a prospective randomized blinded study conducted at a University Veterinary Teaching Hospital.
methodsA total of 24 healthy purpose-bred dogs were randomized into two groups: a treatment and a control group. A CVC was placed in the jugular vein of each dog. Each dog in the treatment group had their CVC flushed with 10 IU/mL HS, while dogs in the control group had their CVC flushed with 0.9% sodium chloride every 6 h for 72 h. Immediately prior to flushing, each catheter was evaluated for patency by aspiration of blood. The catheter site was also evaluated for phlebitis, and a rectal temperature was obtained in each dog every 6 h. Prothrombin (PT) and activated partial thromboplastin (aPTT) times were evaluated prior to the administration of any flush solution. Results were then compared to values obtained 72 h later.
resultsAll CVCs in both groups were patent after 72 h, which was demonstrated by aspiration of blood and ease of flushing the catheter. Two CVCs in the 0.9% sodium chloride group had a negative aspiration at hour 12 and 36, respectively. One CVC in the HS group had a negative aspiration at hour 18. Signs of phlebitis occurred in three dog: two in the 0.9% sodium chloride group and one in the HS group. No dog was hyperthermic (>103 °F). Two catheters were inadvertently removed by dogs in the HS group during the study. There were no significant differences in catheter patency, incidence of phlebitis, or incidence of negative aspirations between both groups. aPTT and PT values remained within the normal reference range for all dogs in both groups. Ultimately, 0.9% sodium chloride was as effective as 10 IU/mL HS in maintaining the patency of CVCs for up to 72 h in healthy dogs. Further evaluation in clinical patients is warranted.
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.