English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Summary   Background  The catheter lock solutions 2% taurolidine and 0.9% saline are both used to prevent catheter‐related bloodstream infections ( CRBSI s) in home parenteral nutrition patients.    Aims  To compare the effectiveness and safety of taurolidine and saline.    Methods  This multicentre double‐blinded trial randomly assigned home parenteral nutrition patients to use either 2% taurolidine or 0.9% saline for 1 year. Patients were stratified in a new catheter group and a pre‐existing catheter group. Primary outcome was the rate of  CRBSI s/1000 catheter days in the new catheter group and pre‐existing catheter group, separately.    Results  We randomised 105 patients, of which 102 were analysed as modified intention‐to‐treat population. In the new catheter group, rates of  CRBSI s/1000 catheter days were 0.29 and 1.49 in the taurolidine and saline arm respectively (relative risk, 0.20; 95%  CI , 0.04‐0.71;  P  = 0.009). In the pre‐existing catheter group, rates of  CRBSI s/1000 catheter days were 0.39 and 1.32 in the taurolidine and saline arm respectively (relative risk, 0.30; 95%  CI , 0.03‐1.82;  P  = 0.25). Excluding one outlier patient in the taurolidine arm, mean costs per patient were $1865 for taurolidine and $4454 for saline ( P  = 0.03). Drug‐related adverse events were rare and generally mild.    Conclusions  In the new catheter group, taurolidine showed a clear decrease in  CRBSI  rate. In the pre‐existing catheter group, no superiority of taurolidine could be demonstrated, most likely due to underpowering. Overall, taurolidine reduced the risk for  CRBSI s by more than four times. Given its favourable safety and cost profile, taurolidine locking should be considered as an additional strategy to prevent  CRBSI s.   Trial registration:  Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier:  NCT 01826526.

Randomised clinical trial: 2% taurolidine versus 0.9% saline locking in patients on home parenteral nutrition