ArticleThe ultrasound journal2024
Comparing contamination rates of sterile-covered and uncovered transducers for ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous lines.
Article in The ultrasound journal, 2024. 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.
- Comparing contamination rates of sterile-covered and uncovered transducers for ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous lines.The ultrasound journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPhysicians frequently use point-of-care ultrasound for intravenous access and bloodwork in the ED. Recently, AIUM and ACEP released recommendations on ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous lines (USPIVs), but there are no agreed upon standardized policies. We sought to determine whether the use of sterile-covered transducers (SCT) decreases the rate of contamination when compared to uncovered transducers (UCT) after standard low-level disinfection (LLD).
methodsThis is a randomized control trial comparing contamination rates of US transducers between SCT and UCT after their use for USPIV by the vascular access team, also known as the "PICC" team, over a 3-month period. A sample of admitted patient with an USPIV order were included and randomized to SCT (experimental) or UCT (control) arms. Transducers were swabbed and inserted into the SystemSURE Plus Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP) Luminometer to calculate Relative Light Units (RLU). We performed a cost analysis of requiring sterile covers for USPIVs.
resultsThe UCT and SCT arms contained 35 and 38 patients, respectively. The SCT group had a mean of 0.34 compared to the UCT group mean of 2.29. Each sterile cover costs $8.49, and over 3000 USPIVs are placed annually by the "PICC" team.
conclusionContamination rates were similar among the UCT and SCT groups after LLD. 254 inpatient USPIVs are performed monthly, not including failed attempts or covers used in the ED where USPIV placement is an essential part of ED workflow. This study suggests that the use of SCT does not significantly affect transducer contamination rates. These findings question burdensome regulatory hospital policies that are not evidence-based.
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.