A clinical evaluation of two central venous catheter stabilization systems

Annals of Intensive Care

Table 1 Clinical and patient characteristics

	Suture group (n = 86 patients)	Suture-free group (n = 85 patients)	p value
Median (IQR) age (years)	66 (56.3; 74)	62 (51; 72)	0.222^a
Median (IQR) APACHE II score	23 (15.5; 32)	21 (14; 29)	0.271^a
Median (IQR) BMI	26.7 (23.0:31.9) (n = 80)	26.8 (24.3:30.5) (n = 73)	0.509^a
Male-to-female ratio (%)	59:27 (68.6:31.4)	68:17 (80.0:20.0)	0.115^b
Number of patients (%) receiving
Sedative agents	38 (44.2)	47 (55.3)	0.170^b
Paralysing agents	11 (12.8)	7 (8.2)	0.456^b
Endotracheal tube	43 (50.0)	50 (58.8)	0.284^b
Tracheostomy	7 (8.1)	16 (18.8)	0.046^b
Mechanical ventilation	46 (53.5)	55 (64.7)	0.162^b
Non-invasive ventilation	18 (20.9)	15 (17.6)	0.699^b
Haemodialysis	9 (10.5)	15 (17.6)	0.194^b
ECMO	2 (2.3)	2 (2.4)	1.00^b

Patients were randomized to receive either sutures and a Tegaderm™ IV Advanced dressing (suture group) or 3M™ PICC/CVC Securement Device + Tegaderm™ IV Advanced dressing (suture-free group) to secure a short-term central venous catheter (CVC) onto the skin [n = number of patients or catheter days (IQR or %)]
APACHE II score, the acute physiology and chronic health evaluation score; BMI, body mass index; ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; RASS score, the Richmond Agitation–Sedation Scale score
^aMann–Whitney test; ^bFisher’s exact test