Heparin solution in the prevention of occlusions in Hickman® catheters a randomized clinical trial
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.3310.3385%20Keywords:
Evidence-Based Nursing; Randomized Controlled Trial; Central Venous Catheters; Catheter Obstruction; Heparin; Sodium Chloride.Abstract
Objective: to evaluate the effectiveness of the 50 IU/mL
heparin solution compared to the 0.9% isotonic saline solution
in preventing occlusion of the double lumen Hickman®
catheter, 7 and 9 French, in patients undergoing hematopoietic
stem cell transplantation. Method: a triple-blind randomized
clinical trial. 17 double-lumen catheters (heparin group: n=7
and 0.9% isotonic saline group: n=10) were analyzed in
which the two catheter routes were evaluated separately,
totaling 34 lumens. The outcome variables were occlusion
without reflux and complete occlusion. Descriptive analyses
were performed using the Chi-square test and, of survival,
according to the Kaplan-Meier test. Results: the mean number
of days until the occlusion outcome was 52 in the heparin
group and 13.46 in the 0.9% isotonic saline group in the white
catheter route (p<0.001). In the red route, the mean followup
days in the heparin group were 35.29, with no occlusion
and 22.30 in the 0.9% isotonic saline group until the first
occlusion (p=0.030). Conclusion: blocking with 50 IU/mL
heparin solution is more effective than 0.9% isotonic saline
in preventing occlusion of the Hickman® catheter. Brazilian
Registry of Clinical Trials: RBR-3ht499.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
RLAE’s authorship concept is based on the substantial contribution by each of the individuals listed as authors, mainly in terms of conceiving and planning the research project, collecting or analyzing and interpreting data, writing and critical review. Indication of authors’ names under the article title is limited to six. If more, authors are listed on the online submission form under Acknowledgements. The possibility of including more than six authors will only be examined on multicenter studies, considering the explanations presented by the authors.Including names of authors whose contribution does not fit into the above criteria cannot be justified. Those names can be included in the Acknowledgements section.
Authors are fully responsible for the concepts disseminated in their manuscripts, which do not necessarily reflect the editors’ and editorial board’s opinion.
