Intensive care medicine · 2003
Comparison of effectiveness of two urinary drainage systems in intensive care unit: a prospective, randomized clinical trial.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеDuplicate PublicationСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Leone Marc, Garnier Franck, Antonini François, Bimar Marie-Christine, Albanèse Jacques, Martin Claude
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: In a previous non-randomized study, we demonstrated that no difference occurred in the rate of acquisition of bacteriuria between a complex closed drainage system (CCDS) and a two-chamber drainage system (TCDS) in patients in an intensive care unit (ICU). To confirm this result, we performed a randomized, prospective, and powerful study assessing the effectiveness of the CCDS and the TCDS in ICU patients.
DESIGN: Randomized, prospective, and controlled study.
SETTING: Medico-surgical intensive care unit (16 beds) in a teaching hospital.
PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Three hundred and eleven patients requiring an indwelling urinary catheter for longer than 48 h were assigned individuals to the TCDS group or CCDS group to compare the rate of acquisition of bacteriuria.
MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Patients did not receive prophylactic antibiotics during placement management or catheter withdrawal. Urine samples were obtained weekly for the duration of catheterization and within 24 h after catheter removal, and each time symptoms of urinary infection were suspected. There was no statistical difference in the rate of bacteriuria between the two groups. Bacteriuria occurred in 8% and 8.5% of patients for TCDS and CCDS, respectively. Rates of urinary tract infection were 12.1 and 12.8 episodes per 1,000 days of catheter.
CONCLUSION: This randomized study, that compares the effectiveness of a TCDS and a CCDS in ICU patients, confirms the results of our previous study. No differences were noted between the two systems (a =0.05). The higher cost of CCDS is not justified for ICU patients.
DESIGN: Randomized, prospective, and controlled study.
SETTING: Medico-surgical intensive care unit (16 beds) in a teaching hospital.
PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Three hundred and eleven patients requiring an indwelling urinary catheter for longer than 48 h were assigned individuals to the TCDS group or CCDS group to compare the rate of acquisition of bacteriuria.
MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Patients did not receive prophylactic antibiotics during placement management or catheter withdrawal. Urine samples were obtained weekly for the duration of catheterization and within 24 h after catheter removal, and each time symptoms of urinary infection were suspected. There was no statistical difference in the rate of bacteriuria between the two groups. Bacteriuria occurred in 8% and 8.5% of patients for TCDS and CCDS, respectively. Rates of urinary tract infection were 12.1 and 12.8 episodes per 1,000 days of catheter.
CONCLUSION: This randomized study, that compares the effectiveness of a TCDS and a CCDS in ICU patients, confirms the results of our previous study. No differences were noted between the two systems (a =0.05). The higher cost of CCDS is not justified for ICU patients.