Incidents related to the duration of medical devices in Intensive Care: a cross-sectional study.
Suelen Pessata Ferraz, Flavia Giron Camerini, Cintia Silva Fassarella and 4 others
PMID 41417380WHAT IT FOUND
ICU records documented 5,436 devices and 61 clinical incidents.
Infections and device-related pressure injury were among the most frequent incidents, and the reported average time to incident was 10 days for ventilation, 9.39 days for central lines, and 8.4 days for urinary catheters.
Key findings
01After eligibility, 1,766 patients had 5,436 invasive devices, and 61 clinical incidents were documented.
02The most frequent incidents were catheter-associated primary bloodstream infection (21.31%), ventilator-associated pneumonia (19.67%), and device-related pressure injury (11.48%).
03The average time from device insertion to incident was 10 days for invasive mechanical ventilation, 9.39 days for central venous catheter, and 8.4 days for indwelling urinary catheter.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
This was a descriptive study, and no risk analyses or predictive models were conducted, so it cannot show that device duration caused the incidents. The data were retrospective hospital records, and underreporting of incidents was a stated limitation, so the recorded 61 incidents may not represent all incidents. Devices left in place for 24 hours or less were excluded, so the paper says nothing about incidents involving very short device use. Duplicate and incomplete records were removed, and incident severity was entered by hospital professionals at the time of reporting, so classification may vary. Benchmarking compared the study hospital with other Epimed users and does not establish that duration of use alone explains performance differences.
Declared interests
Supported by FAPERJ; the supplied text does not state author competing interests.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the 10-day, 9.39-day, and 8.4-day averages as proof that removing devices by those times prevents incidents. The study was descriptive, excluded devices left in place for 24 hours or less, and did not conduct risk analyses or predictive models.