PREFILLED SALINE SYRINGES RATIONALE• SIMPLICITY OF USE• REDUCTION OF MANIPULATION / CONTAMINATION• SPARING NURSING TIME• INCREASE PATIENT/NURSES SAFETY• POSSIBLE REDUCTION OF CRBSI• POSSIBLE SUBSTANTIAL SAVINGS
RETROSPECTIVE SINGLE INSTITUTION COHORT STUDY OF 801 IMPLANTED PORTS WITH TWODIFFERENT MEANS OF FLUSHING AND LOCKING DEVICES MANUALLY FILLED VS PREFILLED NORMAL SALINE SYRINGES
801 UNSELECTED CONSECUTIVE IMPLANTED PORTS ( September 2009 – august 2011 ) SALINE LOCK EVERY 30-DAYS OR AFTER EVERY ACCES 10 ml normal slaine 10 ml normal slaine Manually Filled Syringes Prefilled Filled Syringes MFS Group (303 patients) PFS Group ( 498 patients)MINIMUM FOLLOW-UP : 6 MONTHS
MANUALLY FILLLED vs PREFILLED SALYNE SYRINGESPRIMARY STUDY OUTCOMECRBS infection incidence requiring port removal
MANUALLY FILLLED vs PREFILLED SALINE SYRINGES SECONDARY STUDY OUTCOMES *• AGE• GENDER• PATHOLOGY• STAGE DISEASE• ACCES SITE• BODY SIDE* Multivariate analysis
MANUALLY FILLED vs PREFILLEDSALINE SYRINGES
Port removal according to the use of MFS or PFS
Port removal for CRBSI - Multivariate analysis
Port removal for any reason – Multivariate analysis
Pathogenic microorganisms responsible for catheter relatedbloodstream infection according to the use of MFS and PFS
MANUALLY FILLED vs PREFILLED SALINE SYRINGESCONCLUSIONS Our study provides support that switching from MFS to PFS use during port flushing and locking procedures is a usefull procedure to significantly reduce the incidence rate of CRBSI.
MANUALLY FILLED vs PREFILLED SALINE SYRINGESCONCLUSIONS Further controlled studies are advisable to confirm this result and to eventually assess other potential attractive advantages, such as improving nursing work flow, reducing time to prepare flushing syringes.