COMPARISON OF TRANSPARENT POLYURETHANE FILM AND STERILE GAUZE AS DRESSING MATERIALS FOR CENTRAL VENOUS ACCESS

Ľubomíra Ježová, Katarína Žiaková, Radka Šerfelová
Institute of Nursing, Jessenius Faculty of Medicine, Martin, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia

Korespondenční autor: Ľubomíra Ježová (jezova@jfmed.uniba.sk)

ISSN 1804-7181 (On-line)

Full verze:

Submitted:12. 12. 2011
Accepted: 30. 5. 2012
Published online: 28. 6. 2012

Summary

Aim: The aim of our work was to detect differences in the use of semipermeable transparent film and sterile gauze in the incidence of infectious complications, tolerance to dressing material and dressing condition.

Methods: To file the enrolled 256 patients with an established central venous catheter admitted to the intensive care unit; the site of the central venous access of 128 patients was dressed with sterile gauze, and 128 patients with semipermeable film. We used the method of observation and the results were recorded in the research protocol during the period of central venous catheter use. In processing the empirical data, we used the method of inductive statistics.

Results: The results of statistical analysis show that the use of sterile gauze and semipermeable film incurred significant differences in the incidence of infectious complications. Statistically significant differences were observed in the durability of dressing and bandage skin irritation (p<0.05). Replacing sterile gauze was more frequent (989 times in 128 patients) than the replacement of semipermeable film (162 times in 128 patients). The cost of replacing sterile gauze was higher than the cost of replacing semipermeable film.

Conclusions: The results of the study showed significant differences in the use of semipermeable film and sterile gauze dressing. To use semipermeable film is more advantageous, on one hand in term of place protection from bacteria and fluid, on the other hand in term of visual inspection possibility as the film enables the skin to breathe. Finally usage of film is also economically more advantageous.

Keywords: central venous catheter; dressing materials; complications

Literatura

1. Alexander M et al. (2010). Infusion nursing an evidence-based approach. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Saunders Elsevier. 607 p.

2. Bishop L, Dougherty L, Bodenham A, Mansi J, Crowe P, Kibbler C, Shannon M, Treleaven J (2007). Guidelines on the insertion and management of central venous access devices in adults. International journal of Laboratory Haematology. 29/9: 261–278.

3. Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (2002). Guidelines for the Prevention of intravascular Catheter-Related Infections. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly report. Atlanta. 51/10: 1–32.

4. Dougherty L (2006). Central venous access devices. 1st ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 204 p.

5. Gillies D, O’Riordan E, Carr D, O’Brien I, Frost J, Gunning R (2003). Central venous catheter dressings: a systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 44/6: 623–632.

6. Hamilton H, Bodenham AR (2009). Central venous catheters. 1st ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 253 p.

7. Larwood KA, Anstey CM, Dunn SV (2000). Managing central venous catheters. A prospective randomised trial of two methods. Australian Critical Care. 13/2: 44–50.

8. Nyobe M (2007). Vascular Access Devices Maintenance [online]. [cited 2010–09–29] Available from: http://www.manageinfection.com/…c0907w36.pdf

9. Parker L (2002). Management of intravascular devices to prevent infection. British Journal of Nursing.11/4: 240–246.

10. Pittiruti M, Hamilton H, Biffi R, MacFie J, Pertkiewicz M (2008). ESPEN Guidelines on Parenteral Nutrition: Central Venous Catheters. Clinical Nutrition. 28/4: 365–377.

11. Registered Nurses Association of Ontario (2005). Nursing Best Practice Guidelines programme. Care and Maintenance to Reduce Vascular Access Complications [online]. [cited 2010–03–15] Available from: http://www.rnao.org/…ce_Vascular_ Access_Compli­cations._with_2008_Sup­plement.pdf

12. Reynolds MG, Tebbs SE, Elliott TSJ (1997). Do dressings with increased permeability reduce the incidence of central venous catheter related sepsis? Intensive and Critical care Nursing. 13/1: 26–29.

13. Royal College of Nursing (2010). Standards for infusion therapy. [online], p. 1–102. [cited 2010–04– 24] Available from: http://www.rcn.org.uk/…3/002179.pdf

14. Shivnan JC, McGuire D, Freedman S et al. (1991). A comparison of transparent adherent and dry sterile gauze dressings for long-term central catheters in patients undergoing bone marrow transplant. Oncology Nursing Forum. 18/8: 1349–1356.

15. Treston-Aurend J et al. (1997). Impact of dressing materials on central venous catheter infection rates. 20/4: 201–206.

16. Vascular Access Services, NHS GG&C, Care and Maintenance of Central Venous Catheter Devices (2008). [online]. [cited 2010–05–11]. Available from: http://www.beatson.scot.nhs.uk/content/ mediaassets/doc/CVAD%2­0guidelines%20Sep­tember%2008%20f­ina

17. Volker M (2002). Central venous catheters: many questions, few answers. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation. 17/8: 1368–1373.

18. Wille JC, Blussé van Oud Alblas A, Thewessen EAPM (1993). A comparison of two transparent filmtype dressings in central venous therapy. Journal of Hospital Infection. 23/2:113–121.