ArticleThe journal of vascular access2025
Choice of needleless connector technology as a risk reduction strategy for catheter related bloodstream infection, mortality, and cost: A secondary data analysis.
Article in The journal of vascular access, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare relative risk (RR) of central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) between hospitals using Clave needleless connector technologies (NCT) and comparator hospitals using non-Clave NCT. And, to estimate avoided CLABSIs, mortality, and cost savings.
backgroundNeedleless connectors, while protective against needlestick injury, have long been implicated as a potential risk for CLABSI. Significant RR reduction of CLABSI among the many NCT has not been clinically demonstrated.
methodsThe U.S. Healthcare-Associated Infections database was accessed for CLABSI data for calendar year 2019 via the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website. This dataset was merged with the Clave NCT manufacturer's 2019 database to identify hospitals purchasing Clave NCT (MicroClave™, NanoClave™, Clave Neutron™, Clave™, Microclave™ Clear) and non-Clave NCT comparator hospitals. Sub-analysis of Clave NCT hospitals included: (1) Clave NCT mixed-use and (2) Clave high-volume use hospitals. The standardized infection ratio (SIR) was generated to estimate CLABSI RR after adjusting for intern/resident-to-bed-ratio (IRB), care location, and hospital demographics. Using the RR, avoided CLABSIs, mortality, and cost savings were calculated.
resultsA total of 2987 eligible hospitals (1288 Clave NCT, 1699 non-Clave NCT) with 17,452,575 central line-days were evaluated. All three Clave NCT hospital groups showed a statistically significant reduction in RR compared to the non-Clave NCT hospitals. The RR in Clave NCT hospitals was 0.93, a 7% decrease in CLABSI risk (
conclusionThe use of the Clave NCT, in and of itself, is an effective risk reduction strategy for CLABSI prevention, reduced mortality, and substantial cost savings.
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.