View clinical trials related to Catheter Complications.
Filter by:Inserting a Bladder catheter during catheter ablation is standard practice at most Institutions. Unfortunately, bladder catheters are associated with adverse outcomes, including catheter associated cystitis, hematuria, dysuria, and urethral damage. The investigator proposes a prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing group A that will receive a catheter during the ablation procedure and group B that will not receive the procedure. The Investigator hypothesizes the group receiving the bladder catheters will have a higher rate of complications.
Comparison between internal jugular vein versus via axillary vein with single-incision for placement of implantable ports in cancer patients. Investigators are recruiting 240 patients and randomizing 120 for each arm. Primary outcome is early complications, until 30 days and secondary outcome late complications, between 30 days and 6 months. The follow-up is 12 months.
Demonstrate and compare the 3D morphology of the bladder wall in full and drained states with 2 different kinds of bladder catheters in place. (Foley Catheter vs. Cystosure Catheter)
PICC (Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter) are commun used. Just one paper report morbidity with suture as fixation system for PICC (dislodgement, infection) In the guidelines it's recommended to use sutureless device. The devices actually used are unsatisfactory because of the high risk of migration, accidental removal. A new device, called KTFIX PLUS, seem to be more secure for PICC fixation and offer the possibility to simplify the after care. This device may stay on patient for 4 weeks. Others devices may be changed 1/week. The investigators aimed to compare morbidity between this new device and the old one. The investigators also want to perform an economic evaluation of this device and compare patient quality of life.
The study aims to show the technical feasibility of the suprapubic urinary diversion after endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE) and has a greater comfort for the patients with at least the same catheter complication rate in comparison to the urethral urinary diversion.
Approximately 300 million short peripheral intravascular catheters (PIVs) were sold in the U.S. in 2009. These short (< 3 inches) peripherally inserted IV catheters are vital for providing patients with needed: 1) fluid, electrolyte, nutrient and blood product replacement, 2) medicines and 3) diagnostic solutions (dyes). However, these IV catheters have inherent risks or potential complications which may result from poor catheter securement or stabilization. When a PIV catheter is not properly secured, motion and micro-motion within the vessel cause injury to the vein. This damage to the vein is a primary cause of phlebitis, a distressing complication of PIV therapy. Additional complications of inadequate stabilization of the PIV catheter are infiltration, leaking at the insertion site, pain, infection and dislodgement. According to Royer (2003), the most common reason for PIV catheter failure is infiltration and dislodgement. Infiltration is more dependent on keeping the extremity still, where phlebitis is dependent on injuries due to the chemical nature of the drugs and fluids infused or by the physical trauma to the endothelium from IV pushes. The results of these complications are costly and can be serious if another vein cannot be immediately accessed or if the infiltrated infusate causes tissue necrosis. An unscheduled restart of another PIV catheter causes a delay in patient treatment, patient discomfort, patient dissatisfaction, safety concerns, nursing interruptions and additional costs. Actual costs associated with PIV catheter restarts include materials and nursing resources; yet intangibles such as, treatment for patient complications and patient dissatisfaction may be far more costly. One way to reduce the incidence of PIV catheter-associated complications is to use technologies that help reduce catheter movement thereby improving catheter stabilization. In addition to stabilization platforms added to the peripheral IV catheter design, catheter stabilization devices and modified transparent film dressings also help to reduce catheter movement and could possibly eliminate the need for routine catheter site changes. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to: 1) compare the number of PIV securement-related complications and PIV catheter restarts of one stabilization system to another stabilization system and 2) to determine which system provides a cost savings.