Compare the safety and efficacy of integrated securement device versus suture securement for centrally inserted central venous catheters: a prospective cohort study.

Yilin Chen, Xianghua Chen, Xianghong Jin, Xufen Zeng, Xiuzhu Cao, Linfang Zhao

Abstract readComparative Study

In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Yilin ChenNursing Department, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China.

Xianghua ChenNursing Department, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China.

Xianghong JinNursing Department, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China.

Xufen ZengNursing Department, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China.

Xiuzhu CaoNursing Department, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China.

Linfang ZhaoNursing Department, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China. zhaolf@srrsh.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The securement of centrally inserted central venous catheters is crucial for their safe use. However, a standardized approach to centrally inserted central venous catheters securement has not been established, and securement methods remain controversial. This study is aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of integrated securement device with suture securement for centrally inserted central venous catheters, analyzing the differences in the incidence rates of catheter-related complications between the two methods, thereby providing evidence to inform clinical decision-making regarding centrally inserted central venous catheter securement strategies. From May to June 2025, 271 hospitalized patients with indwelling centrally inserted central venous catheters at a tertiary hospital in Zhejiang, China, were enrolled in this study. Demographic characteristics and catheter insertion details were collected for all participants on the day of catheter placement. Comfort scores were assessed within 48-72 h post-insertion, and patients were monitored daily until catheter removal for complications including catheter dislodgement (complete or partial), catheter-associated skin injury, and catheter-related bloodstream infection. Chi-square tests and Mann-Whitney U test were used, as appropriate, to compare complication rates between patients managed with the two different securement methods. The enrolled patients had a mean age of 63.46 ± 14.13 years, with a slightly higher proportion of males (57.6%) than females. The majority of catheters were placed in surgical patients (84.5%), with double-lumen catheters predominating (93.4%). Right-sided insertion was the most common approach(97.8%). The mean catheter dwell time was 9.01 ± 4.62 days. No significant differences were observed between the suture cohort and the integrated securement device cohort regarding complete catheter dislodgement, partial catheter dislodgement, or catheter-associated skin injury. Neither cohort experienced catheter-related bloodstream infections. However, the integrated securement device cohort demonstrated higher comfort scores and longer average maintenance intervals compared to the suture cohort, with both differences being statistically significant. The integrated securement device could be suggested as a "safe alternative" to suture securement for centrally inserted central venous catheters stabilization, and simultaneously improves patient comfort, extends maintenance intervals, may reduces nursing workload.

Indexed as

Catheterization, Central VenousCentral Venous CathetersSuture TechniquesAdultAgedCatheter-Related InfectionsChinaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSuturesCatheter dislodgementCentrally inserted central venous cathetersIntegrated securement deviceSuture securement

Identifiers

PMID41057503

DOI10.1038/s41598-025-18777-2

PMCPMC12504590

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY-NC-ND

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.