There is growing data which I expect to be published in the journals during
the next year that show an increase rate of CRBSI with mechanical valves.
This may be due to the inability to successfully clean them due to design, lack
of good seal and only one seal, large unprotected fluid pathway and intraluminal
buildup from repeated reflux on connection. There is one new design
connector on the market which has addressed all of these issues and does have
anecdotal positive results. This is the new connector Invision Plus by
RyMed corporation. There will be some reporting of
experience with this new connector during the next year. Because
of a new design that focuses on no reflux on connection or
disconnection and a completely protected fluid pathway with no dead space, the
results in institutions using this product have been very good.
Significant reduced rates of both CRBSI and occlusion have occurred in both
acute and homecare settings. I do have a relationship with RyMed
which I feel is important to let you all know about. But this relationship
does not change the growing data that shows that this new neutral
protected fluid pathway design is repeatedly having positive results where
it is being used. I have attached some of the testimonials to this
email and I know Karen White < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
would be happy to discuss her experience with you. She is planning on
submitting her study as a poster to AVA for the fall
conference.
Denise Macklin
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 1:57
PM
Subject: Re: latest info on caps vs
positive pressure valves
You are a little ahead of the game by asking for information
that
does not exist yet. We know that several hospitals are reporting a
higher rate of CRBSI after switching from a split septum device to a
mechanical valve. Some have then switched back to a split septum and
found the rate of CRBSI went back to the original level.
To my
knowledge there is no real clinical studies (randomized,
prospectice
controlled clinical trials) that have been done on the
positive pressure
valves. So we don't have hard data on their
effectiveness with catheter
lumen occlusion.
We also do not know yet if the rise in infection rates
is due to the
fact that nurses were not cleaning the mechanical valves or
is there
something about the design of these devices that prevents
adequate
cleaning. I have personally witnessed many times within the past
year
when nurses were going to hook up tubing to a mechanical valve
without any cleaning.
So no one has issued any guidelines,
recommendations or standards to
avoid using any type of needleless
connector. Much more research is
needed. Lynn
At 2:14 PM -0400
4/7/06, Mary M. Maskell Amirault wrote:
>Can someone send me in the
right direction for the latest info on
>infections and effectiveness of
positive pressure valves for central
>lines. Are caps not to be
used at all to cover ports?
Thanks
>
>
>
>
>-----------------------------------------
>CONFIDENTIALITY
NOTICE: This email and any attachments may contain
>confidential
information that is protected by law and is for the
>sole use of the
individuals or entities to which it is addressed.
>If you are not the
intended recipient, please notify the sender by
>replying to this email
and destroying all copies of the
>communication and attachments. Further
use, disclosure, copying,
>distribution of, or reliance upon the
contents of this email and
>attachments is strictly prohibited. To
contact Albany Medical
>Center, or for a copy of our privacy practices,
please visit us on
>the Internet at www.amc.edu.
--
Lynn Hadaway, M.Ed.,
RNC, CRNI
Lynn Hadaway Associates, Inc.
126 Main Street, PO Box
10
Milner, GA 30257
http://www.hadawayassociates.com
office
770-358-7861
|
Testimonials.doc
Description: MS-Word document
