A 4-arm randomized controlled pilot trial of innovative solutions for jugular central venous access device securement in 221 cardiac surgical patients

PurposeTo improve jugular central venous access device (CVAD) securement, prevent CVAD failure (composite: dislodgement, occlusion, breakage, local or bloodstream infection), and assess subsequent trial feasibility.Materials and MethodsStudy design was a 4-arm, parallel, randomized, controlled, nonblinded, pilot trial. Patients received CVAD securement with (i) suture + bordered polyurethane (suture + BPU; control), (ii) suture + absorbent dressing (suture + AD), (iii) sutureless securement device + simple polyurethane (SSD + SPU), or (iv) tissue adhesive + simple polyurethane (TA + SPU). Midtrial, due to safety, the TA + SPU intervention was replaced with a suture + TA + SPU group.ResultsA total of 221 patients were randomized with 2 postrandomization exclusions. Central venous access device failure was as follows: suture + BPU controls, 2 (4%) of 55 (0.52/1000 hours); suture + AD, 1 (2%) of 56 (0.26/1000 hours, P = .560); SSD + SPU, 4 (7%) of 55 (1.04/1000 hours, P = .417); TA + SPU, 4 (17%) of 23 (2.53/1000 hours, P = .049); and suture + TA + SPU, 0 (0%) of 30 (P = .263; intention-to-treat, log-rank tests). Central venous access device failure was predicted (P < .05) by baseline poor/fair skin integrity (hazard ratio, 9.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-79.9) or impaired mental state at CVAD removal (hazard ratio, 14.2; 95% confidence interval, 3.0-68.4).ConclusionsJugular CVAD securement is challenging in postcardiac surgical patients who are coagulopathic and mobilized early. TA + SPU was ineffective for CVAD securement and is not recommended. Suture + TA + SPU appeared promising, with zero CVAD failure observed. Future trials should resolve uncertainty about the comparative effect of suture + TA + SPU, suture + AD, and SSD + SPU vs suture + BPU.