TY - JOUR
T1 - Efficacy and Usability of a Novel Barrier Device for Preventing Injection Port Contamination
T2 - A Pilot Simulation Study
AU - Wax, David B.
AU - Shah, Anjan
AU - Shah, Ronak
AU - Lin, Hung Mo
AU - Katz, Daniel
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/3/1
Y1 - 2020/3/1
N2 - Contamination of intravenous (IV) ports and stopcocks has been associated with postoperative infections. We tested the usability and efficacy of a novel passive shielding device to prevent such contamination even in the absence of hand hygiene or port disinfection. In a desktop setting with deliberately contaminated hands, qualitative port contamination was detected after 5/60 (8.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8-18.4) control port injections versus 0/60 (0%; 95% CI, 0-6.0) shielded injections (P =.025). In clinical simulations with a quantitative bioburden assay (measured in relative light units [RLUs]), median (interquartile range [IQR]) postsimulation bioburden was 46 (32-53) vs 27 (21-42) RLU for the control versus intervention groups (P =.036), yielding a median shift of -13 RLU (95% CI, -2 to -26) in favor of the shielding. Usability of the device was acceptable to practitioners.
AB - Contamination of intravenous (IV) ports and stopcocks has been associated with postoperative infections. We tested the usability and efficacy of a novel passive shielding device to prevent such contamination even in the absence of hand hygiene or port disinfection. In a desktop setting with deliberately contaminated hands, qualitative port contamination was detected after 5/60 (8.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8-18.4) control port injections versus 0/60 (0%; 95% CI, 0-6.0) shielded injections (P =.025). In clinical simulations with a quantitative bioburden assay (measured in relative light units [RLUs]), median (interquartile range [IQR]) postsimulation bioburden was 46 (32-53) vs 27 (21-42) RLU for the control versus intervention groups (P =.036), yielding a median shift of -13 RLU (95% CI, -2 to -26) in favor of the shielding. Usability of the device was acceptable to practitioners.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85083875409
U2 - 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004235
DO - 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004235
M3 - Article
C2 - 31136328
AN - SCOPUS:85083875409
SN - 0003-2999
VL - 130
SP - E45-E48
JO - Anesthesia and Analgesia
JF - Anesthesia and Analgesia
IS - 3
ER -