Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Securflux®, an Anti-Reflux Device for Intravenous Infusion

Barreras, Ferran; Cabeza, Manuel Delgado; Terán, Laura Collantes de

doi:10.5301/jva.5000095

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The final review included 178 RCTs (78 non-tunneled [24–101]; 40 PICC [102–141]; 20 totally implanted [142–161]; 12 tunneled [162–173]; 6 non-specified [174–179]; 22 combined [180–201]; See S1 Table for included studies). The non-specified category was created to classify studies that did not specify the type of CVAD.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Randomized controlled trials in central vascular access devices: A scoping review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundRandomized controlled trials evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for central venous access devices, however, high complication rates remain. Scoping reviews map the available evidence and demonstrate evidence deficiencies to focus ongoing research priorities.MethodA scoping review (January 2006–December 2015) of randomized controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of interventions to improve central venous access device outcomes; including peripherally inserted central catheters, non-tunneled, tunneled and totally implanted venous access catheters. MeSH terms were used to undertake a systematic search with data extracted by two independent researchers, using a standardized data extraction form.ResultsIn total, 178 trials were included (78 non-tunneled [44%]; 40 peripherally inserted central catheters [22%]; 20 totally implanted [11%]; 12 tunneled [6%]; 6 non-specified [3%]; and 22 combined device trials [12%]). There were 119 trials (68%) involving adult participants only, with 18 (9%) pediatric and 20 (11%) neonatal trials. Insertion-related themes existed in 38% of trials (67 RCTs), 35 RCTs (20%) related to post-insertion patency, with fewer trials on infection prevention (15 RCTs, 8%), education (14RCTs, 8%), and dressing and securement (12 RCTs, 7%). There were 46 different study outcomes reported, with the most common being infection outcomes (161 outcomes; 37%), with divergent definitions used for catheter-related bloodstream and other infections.ConclusionMore high quality randomized trials across central venous access device management are necessary, especially in dressing and securement and patency. These can be encouraged by having more studies with multidisciplinary team involvement and consumer engagement. Additionally, there were extensive gaps within population sub-groups, particularly in tunneled devices, and in pediatrics and neonates. Finally, outcome definitions need to be unified for results to be meaningful and comparable across studies.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Randomized controlled trials in central vascular access devices: A scoping review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Securflux®, an Anti-Reflux Device for Intravenous Infusion

Abstract: Securflux® is effective, safe and useful for the prevention of venous reflux onset in patients administered IV medication.

Cited by 1 publication

References 11 publications

Randomized controlled trials in central vascular access devices: A scoping review

Randomized controlled trials in central vascular access devices: A scoping review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About