Related Experiment Videos
Comparison of three methods of maintaining a sterile injectate system during cardiac output determinations
Insights
The closed-loop injectate system significantly reduces infection risk during cardiac output determination. This method is also faster and more cost-effective than traditional capped-syringe and double-bag systems.
Area of Science:
- Medical Devices
- Infection Control
- Cardiovascular Physiology
Background:
- Current methods for determining cardiac output (CO) often require complex manipulations of the injectate system.
- These manipulations increase the risk of serious infection, posing a threat to patient safety.
- Developing safer and more efficient CO determination techniques is crucial.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the sterile injectate maintenance, operator time, and cost-effectiveness of three cardiac output determination methods.
- To evaluate the closed-loop injectate delivery system against capped-syringe and double-bag systems.
- To identify the optimal method for safe and efficient cardiac output measurement.
Main Methods:
- A randomized crossover study involving 45 subjects was conducted.
- Three methods were compared: closed-loop injectate delivery, capped-syringe, and double-bag systems.
- Quantitative cultures of injectate samples assessed contamination, with statistical analysis using the Wilcoxon signed rank test.
Main Results:
- The closed-loop method demonstrated superior sterility, with no bacterial growth in 30 cultures (p < 0.0001).
- In contrast, 6 of 30 cultures from both capped-syringe and double-bag methods showed bacterial growth.
- The closed-loop system also required less operator time and was more cost-effective.
Conclusions:
- The closed-loop injectate delivery system offers a significant advantage in maintaining sterile injectate during cardiac output determination.
- This method is associated with reduced infection risk, lower operator time, and improved cost-effectiveness.
- The closed-loop system represents a superior alternative to traditional methods for cardiac output measurement.
Abstract:
Current technique for determining cardiac output involves multiple manipulations of the injectate system and thereby raises the potential for serious infection. A randomized crossover study was undertaken to compare three methods for determining cardiac outputs, focusing on (1) ability to maintain sterile injectate, (2) operator time, and (3) cost effectiveness. The methods compared were the closed-loop injectate delivery, capped-syringe, and double-bag systems. Forty-five subjects were randomly assigned to one of three methods used, then "crossed over" to an alternate method. This resulted in six different groups: (1) 15 subjects assigned to closed loop first, then crossed over to double bag (eight) or capped syringe (seven), (2) 15 subjects assigned to double bag first, then crossed over to closed loop (seven) or capped syringe (eight), and (3) 15 subjects assigned to capped syringe first, then crossed over to double bag (seven) or closed loop (eight). Quantitative cultures of sample injectates served as indicators of contamination. The Wilcoxon signed rank analysis showed no statistical difference (p greater than 0.9) in patient or catheter characteristics between treatment groups. None of 30 cultures from the closed-loop method yielded bacterial growth, compared to 6 of the 30 cultures positive from each of the other methods (p less than 0.0001). The closed-loop method also required less operator time and was more cost effective than the two alternate methods examined.