Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of split-septum and single-use prefilled flushing device vs 3-way stopcock on central line-associated bloodstream infection rates in India: a randomized clinical trial conducted by the International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC).

BACKGROUND: Three-way stopcocks (3WSCs) are open systems used on intravenous tubing. Split septums (SSs) are closed systems with prepierced septums. Single-use prefilled flushing devices (SUFs) carry a lower risk of contamination than standard intravenous flushing. 3WSC and standard flushing are widely used in developing countries. This is the first randomized clinical trial (RCT) to compare rates of central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) between patients using an SS + SUF and those using a 3WSC.

METHODS: An RCT with 1096 patients in 5 adult intensive care units was conducted between April 2012 and August 2014 to evaluate their impact on CLABSI rates. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Healthcare Safety Network definitions were applied and International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium methodology were followed.

RESULTS: The study cohort included 547 patients and 3619 central line (CL)-days for the SS + SUF group, and 549 patients and 4061 CL-days for the 3WSC group. CLABSI rates were 2.21 per 1000 CL-days for SS + SUF and 6.40 per 1000 CL-days for 3WSC (relative risk, 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16-0.76; P = .006). The SS + SUF group had significantly better cumulative infection-free catheter survival compared with the 3WSC group (hazard ration, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.15-0.73; P = .006). Using an SS + SUF represents savings of $402.88 and an increase in quality-adjusted life years of 0.0008 per patient. For each extra dollar invested in an SS + SUF, $124 was saved.

CONCLUSION: The use of SS + SUF is cost-effective and associated with a significantly lower CLABSI rate compared with the use of 3WSC.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app