IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v26y2017i21-22p3658-3663.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison between types of dressing following catheter insertion and early exit‐site infection in peritoneal dialysis

Author

Listed:
  • Ana Elizabeth Figueiredo
  • Carolina de Mattos
  • Cristine Saraiva
  • Marcia Olandoski
  • Pasqual Barretti
  • Roberto Pecoits Filho
  • Thyago Proença de Moraes
  • all BRAZPD II Investigators

Abstract

Aims and objectives To investigate whether the type of dressing used (occlusive vs. semi‐occlusive) impacts on exit‐site infection. Background The exit‐site infections are a major predisposing factor for peritoneal dialysis‐related peritonitis, the main cause of technique failure and an important cause of mortality. The care taken in exit‐site dressing is considered an important procedure for the prevention of trauma and contamination of this area. Nevertheless, to our knowledge, no study has yet analysed the impact of different dressing types on early exit‐site infection (up to two months after catheter insertion). Design A prospective observational study involving the BRAZPD II (Brazilian Peritoneal Dialysis Multicenter Study) cohort. Methods All incident patients with data available for dressing type applied following peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion were included in the study. A multilevel logistic regression model was used to compare the log‐odds of exit‐site infections between groups. Results A total of 2460 incident patients were included. Occlusive and semi‐occlusive dressings were applied in 82·6% (n = 2031) and 17·4% (n = 427) of patients, respectively. Exit‐site infection incidence was not affected by the type of dressing used, with a logit for occlusive dressing of 2·15 (95% CI 0·81–5·70). The combined outcome of exit‐site infection and tunnel infection also showed no significance between the groups (logit 1·46, 95% CI 0·72–2·97). Conclusion Our results indicate that the type of exit‐site dressing used during the healing phase following peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion has no impact on early exit‐site infection rates. Relevance to clinical practice Provides evidence to support the similarity between occlusive and semi‐occlusive dressing regarding infection rates in exit site of peritoneal dialysis catheter, therefore allowing the choice to be made accordingly to routine or availability.

Suggested Citation

  • Ana Elizabeth Figueiredo & Carolina de Mattos & Cristine Saraiva & Marcia Olandoski & Pasqual Barretti & Roberto Pecoits Filho & Thyago Proença de Moraes & all BRAZPD II Investigators, 2017. "Comparison between types of dressing following catheter insertion and early exit‐site infection in peritoneal dialysis," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(21-22), pages 3658-3663, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:26:y:2017:i:21-22:p:3658-3663
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13738
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13738
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.13738?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fang Cao & Lanfei Li & Miao Lin & Qinyu Lin & Yiping Ruan & Fuyuan Hong, 2018. "Application of instant messaging software in the follow‐up of patients using peritoneal dialysis, a randomised controlled trial," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(15-16), pages 3001-3007, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:26:y:2017:i:21-22:p:3658-3663. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.