Cochrane · systematic review · CD013023
Dressings and securement devices to prevent complications for peripheral arterial catheters
Schults, JA, Reynolds, H, Rickard, CM, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2024 · Cochrane Library
WoundsAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
20
current version
GRADE rated
20
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 12 · 60%Low 8 · 40%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Standard polyurethane plus tissue adhesive compared with standard polyurethane for arterial catheter dressing and securement
Population: people with arterial catheter dressing and securement
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Arterial catheter failure assessed during catheter dwell Standard polyurethane plus tissue adhesive vs standard polyurethane | RR 0.44 [0.2, 0.98] | 2 studies · 165 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Incidence of catheter‐related bloodstream infection assessed during catheter dwell or 48 hours after removal Standard polyurethane plus tissue adhesive vs standard polyurethane | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 165 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Dislodgement assessed during catheter dwell Standard polyurethane plus tissue adhesive vs standard polyurethane | RR 0.54 [0.03, 9.62] | 2 studies · 165 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Occlusion assessed during catheter dwell Standard polyurethane plus tissue adhesive vs standard polyurethane | RR 1.2 [0.37, 3.91] | 2 studies · 165 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events assessed during catheter dwell and on product removal Standard polyurethane plus tissue adhesive vs standard polyurethane | RR 0.89 [0.09, 8.33] | 2 studies · 165 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Bordered polyurethane compared with standard polyurethane for arterial catheter dressing and securement
Population: people with arterial catheter dressing and securement
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Arterial catheter failureassessed during catheter dwell Bordered polyurethane vs standard polyurethane | RR 0.67 [0.21, 2.13] | 1 study · 60 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Incidence of catheter‐related bloodstream infectionassessed during catheter dwell or 48 hours after removal Bordered polyurethane vs standard polyurethane | RR 3.05 [0.12, 74.45] | 2 studies · 572 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Dislodgement assessed during catheter dwell Bordered polyurethane vs standard polyurethane | RR 0.75 [0.17, 3.22] | 2 studies · 572 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Occlusion assessed during catheter dwell Bordered polyurethane vs standard polyurethane | RR 0.8 [0.6, 1.07] | 2 studies · 572 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Adverse events assessed during catheter dwell Bordered polyurethane vs standard polyurethane | RR 0.33 [0.01, 7.87] | 1 study · 60 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Standard polyurethane plus sutureless securement devices compared with standard polyurethane for arterial catheter dressing and securement
Population: people with arterial catheter dressing and securement
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Arterial catheter failureassessed during catheter dwell Standard polyurethane plus sutureless securement devices vs standard polyurethane | RR 0.78 [0.4, 1.52] | 2 studies · 157 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Incidence of catheter‐related bloodstream infection assessed during catheter dwell or 48 hours after removal Standard polyurethane plus sutureless securement devices vs standard polyurethane | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 157 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Dislodgement assessed during catheter dwell Standard polyurethane plus sutureless securement devices vs standard polyurethane | RR 0.14 [0.01, 2.57] | 2 studies · 157 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Occlusion assessed during catheter dwell Standard polyurethane plus sutureless securement devices vs standard polyurethane | RR 1.94 [0.5, 7.48] | 2 studies · 157 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events assessed during catheter dwell and on product removal Standard polyurethane plus sutureless securement devices vs standard polyurethane | RR 1.94 [0.19, 20.24] | 2 studies · 157 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Integrated securement dressings compared with standard polyurethane for arterial catheter dressing and securement
Population: people with arterial catheter dressing and securement
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Arterial catheter failureassessed during catheter dwell or 48 hours after removal Integrated securement dressings vs standard polyurethane | RR 1.96 [0.8, 4.84] | 1 study · 105 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Incidence of catheter‐related bloodstream infectionassessed during catheter dwell or 48 hours after removal Integrated securement dressings vs standard polyurethane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 105 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Dislodgement assessed during catheter dwell Integrated securement dressings vs standard polyurethane | RR 0.33 [0.04, 3.04] | 1 study · 105 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Occlusion assessed during catheter dwell Integrated securement dressings vs standard polyurethane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 105 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Adverse events assessed during catheter dwell or on product removal Integrated securement dressings vs standard polyurethane | RR 0.35 [0.01, 8.45] | 1 study · 105 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |