An observational study of the securement of central venous access devices with a subcutaneous anchor device in a paediatric population at a tertiary level hospital.

Paediatric central venous access devices are associated with significant complications. Failure rates have been estimated to be as high as 25%, with securement failure a significant contributing factor. In this study, we evaluate the use of a subcutaneous securement device, securAcathTM, in minimising rates of central venous access device dislodgement and unintended early removal within a paediatric population. Data were collected on 52 consecutive paediatric patients, aged less than 18 years old, who required peripherally inserted central catheters and non-cuffed tunnelled centrally inserted central catheters. We found that the rate of securement failure with securAcathTM was 2.01 per 1000 catheter days. This compared to 2.58 in our previous practice without securAcathTM. With the use of securAcathTM, no securement failures were observed in our patients with non-cuffed tunnelled centrally inserted central catheters. There were three instances of securement failure in patients with peripherally inserted central catheters. We conclude that the use of a securAcathTM fixation device in central venous access devices is an effective method of securement, especially in use with non-cuffed tunneled centrally inserted central catheters. However, when significant tension is applied to the central venous access devices migration is still possible.

SecurAstaP trial: securement with SecurAcath versus StatLock for peripherally inserted central catheters, a randomised open trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect on needed nursing time for dressing change. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: A parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled trial in patients who are in need for a peripherally inserted central catheter insertion in one teaching hospital in Belgium. The follow-up lasted 180 days or until catheter removal, whatever came first. A computer generated table was used to allocate devices. Randomised patients were 105 adults (StatLock, n=53; SecurAcath, n=52) and primary analysis was based on all patients (n=92) with time measurements (StatLock, n=43; SecurAcath, n=49). INTERVENTIONS: StatLock which has to be changed weekly versus SecurAcath which could remain in place for the complete catheter dwell time. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Needed time for the dressing change at each dressing change (SecurAcath) or at each dressing change combined with the change of the securement device (StatLock). RESULTS: Median time needed for dressing change was 7.3 min (95% CI 6.4 min to 8.3 min) in the StatLock group and in the SecurAcath group 4.3 min (95% CI 3.8 min to 4.9 min) (P<0.0001). The time in the SecurAcath group was reduced with 41% (95% CI 29% to 51%). Incidence rates of migration, dislodgement and catheter-related bloodstream infection were comparable across groups. Pain scores were higher with SecurAcath than with StatLock at insertion (P=0.02) and at removal (P<0.001) and comparable during dressing change (P=0.38) and during dwell time (P=0.995). User-friendliness was scored at insertion and removal. All statements regarding the user-friendliness were scored significantly higher for StatLock than for SecurAcath (P<0.05). Only for the statement regarding the recommending routine use of the device, which was asked at removal, no difference was found between the two devices (P=0.32). CONCLUSION: Use of SecurAcath saves time during dressing change compared with StatLock. Training on correct placement and removal of SecurAcath is critical to minimise pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02311127; Pre-results.