Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

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

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

DOI

  1. Editorial: suicide and IBD-a call to action. Authors' reply

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. The effect of glucagon-like peptide-1 and glucagon-like peptide-2 on microcirculation: a systematic review

    Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

  2. Novel GLP-1/GLP-2 co-agonists display marked effects on gut volume and improves glycemic control in mice

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Nutritional Therapy in Adult Short Bowel Syndrome Patients with Chronic Intestinal Failure

    Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations

BACKGROUND: The catheter lock solutions 2% taurolidine and 0.9% saline are both used to prevent catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) 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 CRBSIs/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 CRBSIs/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 CRBSIs/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 CRBSIs by more than four times. Given its favourable safety and cost profile, taurolidine locking should be considered as an additional strategy to prevent CRBSIs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT01826526.

Original languageEnglish
JournalAlimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics
Volume48
Issue number4
Pages (from-to)410-422
Number of pages13
ISSN0269-2813
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2018

ID: 56503124