Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

12.00 12.15 sergio bertoglio - publiceren

444 views

Published on

Published in: Health & Medicine, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

12.00 12.15 sergio bertoglio - publiceren

  1. 1. REDUCING CRBSI BY USING PREFILLED NORMALSALINE SOLUTION SYRINGES WHEN FLUSHING ANDLOCKING PORT DEVICES IN ADULT CANCERPATIENTS; A SINGLE INSTITUTION PRELIMINARYSTUDY  
  2. 2. Disclosure• No  disclosures  related  to  this  study  • This  research  was  funded  solely  with   Ins6tu6onal  grants  
  3. 3. ANALYSIS OF PORT FAILURES IST GENOVA 1990-2008 INFECTION MECHANICAL FAILURE OTHERS 14 12.5 12 FAILURES % 10 10.3 8 7.1 6.6 6 4 4,3 3.9 3,4 3.1 2 0 0,6 0,5 0,4 90-95 95-00 00-05 05-08
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. RETROSPECTIVE SINGLE INSTITUTION COHORT STUDY OF 801 IMPLANTED PORTS WITH TWODIFFERENT MEANS OF FLUSHING AND LOCKING DEVICES MANUALLY FILLED VS PREFILLED NORMAL SALINE SYRINGES
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. MANUALLY FILLLED vs PREFILLED SALYNE SYRINGESPRIMARY STUDY OUTCOMECRBS infection incidence requiring port removal
  8. 8. MANUALLY FILLLED vs PREFILLED SALINE SYRINGES SECONDARY STUDY OUTCOMES *•  AGE•  GENDER•  PATHOLOGY•  STAGE DISEASE•  ACCES SITE•  BODY SIDE* Multivariate analysis
  9. 9. MANUALLY FILLED vs PREFILLEDSALINE SYRINGES
  10. 10. Port removal according to the use of MFS or PFS
  11. 11. Port removal for CRBSI - Multivariate analysis
  12. 12. Port removal for any reason – Multivariate analysis
  13. 13. Pathogenic microorganisms responsible for catheter relatedbloodstream infection according to the use of MFS and PFS
  14. 14. 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.
  15. 15. 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.
  16. 16. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION

×