OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare Foley balloon catheter placement for 6 vs 12 hours in induction of labor after 1 previous cesarean delivery.
STUDY DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in a university hospital in Malaysia from January 2022 to February 2023. Eligible women with 1 previous cesarean delivery admitted for induction of labor were enrolled. Participants were randomized after balloon catheter insertion for 6 or 12 hours of passive ripening before balloon deflation and removal to check cervical status for amniotomy. The primary outcome was the induction of labor to delivery interval. The secondary outcomes were largely derived from the core outcome set for trials on induction of labor (Core Outcomes in Women's and Newborn Health [CROWN]). The Student t test, Mann-Whitney U test, chi-square test, and Fisher exact test were used as appropriate for the data.
RESULTS: Overall, 126 women were randomized, 63 to each intervention. The mean induction of labor to delivery intervals were 23.0 (standard deviation, ±8.9) in the 6-hour arm and 26.6 (standard deviation, ±7.1) in the 12-hour arm (mean difference, -3.5 hours; 95% confidence interval, -6.4 to -0.7; P=.02). The median induction of labor (Foley balloon catheter insertion) to Foley balloon catheter removal intervals were 6.0 hours (interquartile range, 6.0-6.3) in the 6-hour arm and 12.0 hours (interquartile range, 12.0-12.5) in the 12-hour arm (P
CASE DETAILS: In the present case, the fracture was suspected during the process of removal. The tip of the catheter was notably missing, and an emergency chest radiograph confirmed our diagnosis of a retained fracture of central venous catheter. The retained portion was removed by the interventional radiologist using an endovascular loop snare and delivered through a femoral vein venotomy performed by the surgeon.
CONCLUSION: Endovascular approach to retrieval of retained fractured catheters has helped tremendously to reduce associated morbidity and the need for major surgery. The role of surgery has become limited to instances of failed endovascular retrieval and in remote geographical locations devoid of such specialty.
METHODS: We prospectively followed 100 patients (50:50 cuffed and non-cuffed PICC) and compared CRBSI rate between these groups. Daily review and similar catheter care were performed until a PICC-related complication, completion of therapy, death or defined end-of-study date necessitate removal. CRBSI was confirmed in each case by demonstrating concordance between isolates colonizing the PICC at the time of infection and from peripheral blood cultures.
RESULTS: A total of 50 cuffed PICC were placed for 1864 catheter-days. Of these, 12 patients (24%) developed infection, for which 5 patients (10%) had a CRBSI for a rate of 2.7 per 1000 catheter-days. Another 50 tunnelled non-cuffed PICCs were placed for 2057 catheter-days. Of these, 7 patients (14%) developed infection, for which 3 patients (6%) had a CRBSI. for a rate of 1.5 per 1000 catheter-days. The mean time to development of infection is 24 days in cuffed and 19 days in non-cuffed groups. The mean duration of utilization was significantly longer in non-cuffed than in cuffed group (43 days in non-cuffed vs 37 days in cuffed group, p = 0.008).
CONCLUSIONS: Cuffed PICC does not further reduce the rate of local or bloodstream infection. Tunnelled non-cuffed PICC is shown to be as effective if not better at reducing risk of CRBSI and providing longer catheter dwell time compared to cuffed PICC.
DESIGN: A prospective cohort study.
SETTING: The study was conducted across 623 ICUs of 224 hospitals in 114 cities in 37 African, Asian, Eastern European, Latin American, and Middle Eastern countries.
PARTICIPANTS: The study included 169,036 patients, hospitalized for 1,166,593 patient days.
METHODS: Data collection took place from January 1, 2014, to February 12, 2022. We identified CAUTI rates per 1,000 UC days and UC device utilization (DU) ratios stratified by country, by ICU type, by facility ownership type, by World Bank country classification by income level, and by UC type. To estimate CAUTI risk factors, we analyzed 11 variables using multiple logistic regression.
RESULTS: Participant patients acquired 2,010 CAUTIs. The pooled CAUTI rate was 2.83 per 1,000 UC days. The highest CAUTI rate was associated with the use of suprapubic catheters (3.93 CAUTIs per 1,000 UC days); with patients hospitalized in Eastern Europe (14.03) and in Asia (6.28); with patients hospitalized in trauma (7.97), neurologic (6.28), and neurosurgical ICUs (4.95); with patients hospitalized in lower-middle-income countries (3.05); and with patients in public hospitals (5.89).The following variables were independently associated with CAUTI: Age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.01; P < .0001), female sex (aOR, 1.39; P < .0001), length of stay (LOS) before CAUTI-acquisition (aOR, 1.05; P < .0001), UC DU ratio (aOR, 1.09; P < .0001), public facilities (aOR, 2.24; P < .0001), and neurologic ICUs (aOR, 11.49; P < .0001).
CONCLUSIONS: CAUTI rates are higher in patients with suprapubic catheters, in middle-income countries, in public hospitals, in trauma and neurologic ICUs, and in Eastern European and Asian facilities.Based on findings regarding risk factors for CAUTI, focus on reducing LOS and UC utilization is warranted, as well as implementing evidence-based CAUTI-prevention recommendations.
METHODS: A questionnaire regarding details of the PD program and training practices was distributed to IPPN member centers, while peritonitis and ESI rates were either derived from the IPPN registry or obtained directly from the centers. Poisson univariate and multivariate regression was used to determine the training-related peritonitis and ESI risk factors.
RESULTS: Sixty-two of 137 centers responded. Information on peritonitis and ESI rates were available from fifty centers. Training was conducted by a PD nurse in 93.5% of centers, most commonly (50%) as an in-hospital program. The median total training time was 24 hours, with a formal assessment conducted in 88.7% and skills demonstration in 71% of centers. Home visits were performed by 58% of centers. Shorter (
METHODS: From January 1, 2014, to February 12, 2022, we conducted a prospective cohort study. To estimate CAUTI incidence, the number of UC days was the denominator, and CAUTI was the numerator. To estimate CAUTI RFs, we analyzed 11 variables using multiple logistic regression.
RESULTS: 84,920 patients hospitalized for 499,272 patient days acquired 869 CAUTIs. The pooled CAUTI rate per 1,000 UC-days was 3.08; for those using suprapubic-catheters (4.11); indwelling-catheters (2.65); trauma-ICU (10.55), neurologic-ICU (7.17), neurosurgical-ICU (5.28); in lower-middle-income countries (3.05); in upper-middle-income countries (1.71); at public-hospitals (5.98), at private-hospitals (3.09), at teaching-hospitals (2.04). The following variables were identified as CAUTI RFs: Age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.01; 95% CI = 1.01-1.02; P