A dedicated intravenous cannula for postoperative use effect on incidence and severity of phlebitis

Peripheral intravenous catheter infection and failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Peripheral intravenous catheters are the most frequently used invasive device in nursing practice, yet are commonly associated with complications. We performed a systematic review to determine the prevalence of peripheral intravenous catheter infection and all-cause failure.

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched for observational studies and randomised controlled trials that reported peripheral intravenous catheter related infections or failure. The review was limited to English language and articles published from the year 2000. Pooled estimates were calculated with random-effects models. Meta-analysis of observation studies in epidemiology guidelines and the Cochrane process for randomised controlled trials were used to guide the review. Prospero registration number: CRD42022349956.

FINDINGS

Our search retrieved 34,725 studies. Of these, 41 observational studies and 28 randomised controlled trials (478,586 peripheral intravenous catheters) met inclusion criteria. The pooled proportion of catheter-associated bloodstream infections was 0.028 % (95 % confidence interval (CI): 0.009-0.081; 38 studies), or 4.40 catheter-associated bloodstream infections per 100,000 catheter-days (20 studies, 95 % CI: 3.47-5.58). Local infection was reported in 0.150 % of peripheral intravenous catheters (95 % CI: 0.047-0.479, 30 studies) with an incidence rate of 65.1 per 100,000 catheter-days (16 studies; 95 % CI: 49.2-86.2). All cause peripheral intravenous catheter failure before treatment completion occurred in 36.4 % of catheters (95 % CI: 31.7-41.3, 53 studies) with an overall incidence rate of 4.42 per 100 catheter days (78,891 catheter days; 19 studies; 95 % CI: 4.27-4.57).

INTERPRETATION

Peripheral intravenous catheter failure is a significant worldwide problem, affecting one in three catheters. Per peripheral intravenous catheter, infection occurrence was low, however, with over two billion catheters used globally each year, the absolute number of infections and associated burden remains high. Substantial and systemwide efforts are needed to address peripheral intravenous catheter infection and failure and the sequelae of treatment disruption, increased health costs and poor patient outcomes.

Novel Design of Peripheral Infusion Catheter Improves the Kinetics of Intravenous Drug Release

Short peripheral catheters are ubiquitous in today's healthcare environment, enabling effective and direct delivery of fluids and medications intravenously. A commonly associated complication of their use is thrombophlebitis-thrombus formation-involved inflammation of the vein wall. A novel design of a very short peripheral catheter showed promising results in a pig model in reducing the mechanical irritation to the vein wall. Here, the kinetics of drug release through the novel catheter was compared to a standard commercial catheter using experimental and computational models. In a good agreement, in vitro and in silico models reveal the superiority of the novel catheter design with faster washout time, favorable spatial distribution within the vein, and substantially lower wall shear stress. We submit therefore that the novel design has an improved drug removal profile compared to the conventional catheter and can potentially reduce chemical irritation to the vein wall and minimize the risk for thrombophlebitis. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Short peripheral catheters are ubiquitous in today's healthcare environment, allowing effective and direct delivery of fluids and medications intravenously. It is well known, however, that prolonged exposure to an irritant drug may lead to its absorption in the endothelial layer lining the vein wall, promoting among other, thrombophlebitis that may lead to increased morbidity, delayed treatment, and prolonged hospitalization. There have been multiple calls to consider low infusion rates with various infusion protocols and to place the catheter tip as central as possible to promote faster drug clearance and reduce the potential vessel damage, but the requisite device had not been available, and the short peripheral catheter is still, and for decades, the standard of care. Towards this end, we recently introduced a novel very short peripheral catheter design, and here, we demonstrate using experimental and computational models its favorable spatial and temporal drug-releasing profiles compared with the standard catheter. The clinically potential relevance is underscore both by the more efficient perfusion of IV drugs and lower irritation to the vein wall at the site of injection. Graphical abstract.

The Development and Testing of a Chemotherapy-Induced Phlebitis Severity (CIPS) Scale for Patients Receiving Anthracycline Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer

A chemotherapy induced phlebitis severity (CIPS) scale was developed in patients receiving anthracycline chemotherapy for breast cancer. A five-point severity scoring scale for chemotherapy-induced phlebitis was tested for inter-rater reliability. Ease of use was observed through timing assessments and a review of the completeness of documentation. A comparison of CIPS scale grade with participant reported severity scores was made. The final version was tested for inter-rater reliability, with 122 patient assessments. There was an 89.3% (109 of 122) agreement between the assessors (κ = 0.82, SE ± 0.042, 95% CI 0.74–0.90). Mean time to complete the scale was 1 min 36 s and documentation was fully completed for 98% of assessments. Patient reported severity closely matched the CIPS grade (κ = 0.54, SE ± 0.045, 95% CI 0.46–0.63). This new scale provides a list of symptoms associated with chemotherapy phlebitis, which can be scored quickly and accurately. It provides a reliable method for assessing chemotherapy-induced phlebitis, enabling a better understanding of its impact on patients’ quality of life, and to inform the appropriate choice of peripheral or central intravenous administration. Multicentre testing of the CIPS scale is recommended.

The incidence and risk of infusion phlebitis with peripheral intravenous catheters: A meta-analysis

Introduction:

Phlebitis is a common complication associated with the use of peripheral intravenous catheters. The aim of this study was to estimate the incidence of phlebitis with peripheral intravenous catheter use and to identify risk factors for phlebitis development.

Method:

Literature survey was conducted in electronic databases (CINAHL, Embase, Google Scholar, Ovid, and PubMed), and studies were included if they used peripheral intravenous catheter for therapeutic or volumetric infusion and reported phlebitis incidence rates. Random effects meta-analyses were performed to obtain overall and subgroup phlebitis incidence rates and odds ratio between males and females in phlebitis incidence.

Results:

Thirty-five studies were included (20,697 catheters used for 15,791 patients; age 57.1 years (95% confidence interval: 55.0, 59.2); 53.9% males (95% confidence interval: 42.3, 65.5)). Incidence of phlebitis was 30.7 per 100 catheters (95% confidence interval: 27.2, 34.2). Incidence of severe phlebitis was 3.6% (95% confidence interval: 2.7%, 4.6%). Incidence of phlebitis was higher in non-intervened (30% (95% confidence interval: 27%, 33%)) than in intervened (21% (95% confidence interval: 15%, 27%)) groups, and with Teflon (33% (95% confidence interval: 25%, 41%)) than Vialon (27% (95% confidence interval: 21%, 32%)) cannula use. Odds of developing phlebitis was significantly higher in females (odds ratio = 1.42 (95% confidence interval: 1.05, 1.93); p = 0.02). Longer dwelling time, antibiotics infusion, female gender, forearm insertion, infectious disease, and Teflon catheter are important risk factors for phlebitis development identified by the included studies.

Conclusion:

Incidence of phlebitis with the use of peripheral intravenous catheters during infusion is 31%. Severe phlebitis develops in 4% of all patients. Risk of phlebitis development can be reduced by adapting appropriate interventions.

Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters

BACKGROUND

US Centers for Disease Control guidelines recommend replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVC) no more frequently than every 72 to 96 hours. Routine replacement is thought to reduce the risk of phlebitis and bloodstream infection. Catheter insertion is an unpleasant experience for patients and replacement may be unnecessary if the catheter remains functional and there are no signs of inflammation or infection. Costs associated with routine replacement may be considerable. This is the third update of a review first published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of removing peripheral intravenous catheters when clinically indicated compared with removing and re-siting the catheter routinely.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 18 April 2018. We also undertook reference checking, and contacted researchers and manufacturers to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that compared routine removal of PIVC with removal only when clinically indicated, in hospitalised or community-dwelling patients receiving continuous or intermittent infusions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently reviewed trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the overall evidence certainty.

MAIN RESULTS

This update contains two new trials, taking the total to nine included studies with 7412 participants. Eight trials were conducted in acute hospitals and one in a community setting. We rated the overall certainty of evidence as moderate for most outcomes, due to serious risk of bias for unblinded outcome assessment or imprecision, or both. Because outcome assessment was unblinded in all of the trials, none met our criteria for high methodological quality.Primary outcomesSeven trials (7323 participants), assessed catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI). There is no clear difference in the incidence of CRBSI between the clinically indicated (1/3590) and routine change (2/3733) groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 4.68), low-certainty evidence (downgraded twice for serious imprecision).All trials reported incidence of thrombophlebitis and we combined the results from seven of these in the analysis (7323 participants). We excluded two studies in the meta-analysis because they contributed to high heterogeneity. There is no clear difference in the incidence of thrombophlebitis whether catheters were changed according to clinical indication or routinely (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.25; clinically indicated 317/3590; 3-day change 307/3733, moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded once for serious risk of bias). The result was unaffected by whether the infusion was continuous or intermittent. Six trials provided thrombophlebitis rates by number of device days (32,709 device days). There is no clear difference between groups (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.08; clinically indicated 248/17,251; 3-day change 236/15,458; moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded once for serious risk of bias).One trial (3283 participants), assessed all-cause blood stream infection (BSI). We found no clear difference in the all-cause BSI rate between the two groups (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.53; clinically indicated: 4/1593 (0.02%); routine change 9/1690 (0.05%); moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded one level for serious imprecision).Three trials (4244 participants), investigated costs; clinically indicated removal probably reduces device-related costs by approximately AUD 7.00 compared with routine removal (MD -6.96, 95% CI -9.05 to -4.86; moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded once for serious risk of bias).Secondary outcomesSix trials assessed infiltration (7123 participants). Routine replacement probably reduces infiltration of fluid into surrounding tissues compared with a clinically indicated change (RR 1.16 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.26; routine replacement 747/3638 (20.5%); clinically indicated 834/3485 (23.9%); moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded once for serious risk of bias).Meta-analysis of seven trials (7323 participants), found that rates of catheter failure due to blockage were probably lower in the routine-replacement group compared to the clinically indicated group (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.29; routine-replacement 519/3733 (13.9%); clinically indicated 560/3590 (15.6%); moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded once for serious risk of bias).Four studies (4606 participants), reported local infection rates. It is uncertain if there are differences between groups (RR 4.96, 95% CI 0.24 to 102.98; clinically indicated 2/2260 (0.09%); routine replacement 0/2346 (0.0%); very low-certainty evidence, downgraded one level for serious risk of bias and two levels for very serious imprecision).One trial (3283 participants), found no clear difference in the incidence of mortality when clinically indicated removal was compared with routine removal (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.23; low-certainty evidence, downgraded two levels for very serious imprecision).One small trial (198 participants) reported no clear difference in device-related pain between clinically indicated and routine removal groups (MD -0.60, 95% CI -1.44 to 0.24; low-certainty evidence, downgraded one level for serious risk of bias and one level for serious imprecision).The pre-planned outcomes 'number of catheter re-sites per patient', and 'satisfaction' were not reported by any studies included in this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence of no clear difference in rates of CRBSI, thrombophlebitis, all-cause BSI, mortality and pain between clinically indicated or routine replacement of PIVC. We are uncertain if local infection is reduced or increased when catheters are changed when clinically indicated. There is moderate-certainty evidence that infiltration and catheter blockage is probably lower when PIVC are changed routinely; and moderate-certainty evidence that clinically indicated removal probably reduces device-related costs. The addition of two new trials for this update found no further evidence to support changing catheters every 72 to 96 hours. Healthcare organisations may consider changing to a policy whereby catheters are changed only if there is a clinical indication to do so, for example, if there were signs of infection, blockage or infiltration. This would provide significant cost savings, spare patients the unnecessary pain of routine re-sites in the absence of clinical indications and would reduce time spent by busy clinicians on this intervention. To minimise PIVC-related complications, staff should inspect the insertion site at each shift change and remove the catheter if signs of inflammation, infiltration, occlusion, infection or blockage are present, or if the catheter is no longer needed for therapy.

Accepted but Unacceptable: Peripheral IV Catheter Failure

Peripheral intravenous (IV) catheter insertion, the most common invasive hospital procedure performed worldwide, is associated with a variety of complications and an unacceptably high overall failure rate of 35% to 50% in even the best of hands. Catheter failure is costly to patients, caregivers, and the health care system. Although advances have been made, analysis of the mechanisms underlying the persistent high rate of peripheral IV failure reveals opportunities for improvement.

Mechanical Compression Effects on the Secretion of vWF and IL-8 by Cultured Human Vein Endothelium

Short peripheral catheters are ubiquitous in today's healthcare environment enabling effective delivery of fluids and medications directly into a patient's vasculature. However, complications related to their use, such as short peripheral catheter thrombophlebitis (SPCT), affect up to 80% of hospitalized patients. While indwelling within the vein, the catheters exert prolonged constant pressure upon the endothelium which can trigger inflammation processes. We have developed and studied an in-vitro model of cultured endothelial cells subjected to mechanical compression of modular self-designed weights, and explored their inflammatory response by quantification of two key biomarkers- vWF and IL-8. Evaluation was performed by ELISA immunoassay and processing of vWF-labeled immunofluorescence images. We found that application of weights correspond to 272 Pa yielded increased release of vWF and IL-8 up to 150% and 250% respectively, comparing to the exertion of 136 Pa. Analyses of the immunofluorescence images revealed significantly longer and more extracellular vWF-strings as well as higher intensity stained-pixels in cells exposed to elevated pressures. The release of both factors found to be significantly dependent on the extent of the exerted pressure. The research shed a light on the relationship between induced mechanical compression and the pathogenesis of SPCT. Minimizing, let alone eliminating the contact between the catheter and the vein wall will mitigate the pressure acting on the endothelium, thereby reducing the secretion of inflammatory factors and lessen the incidence of SPCT.

Accepted but unacceptable: peripheral IV catheter failure

Peripheral intravenous (IV) catheter insertion, the most common invasive hospital procedure performed worldwide, is associated with a variety of complications and an unacceptably high overall failure rate of 35% to 50% in even the best of hands. Catheter failure is costly to patients, caregivers, and the health care system. Although advances have been made, analysis of the mechanisms underlying the persistent high rate of peripheral IV failure reveals opportunities for improvement.

Quantitative T2 mapping for detection and quantification of thrombophlebitis in a rabbit model

Short peripheral catheter thrombophlebitis (SPCT), a sterile inflammation of the vein wall, is the most common complication associated with short peripheral catheters (SPCs) and affects up to 80% of hospitalized patients receiving IV therapy. Extensive research efforts have been devoted for improvement and optimization of the catheter material, but means for examination of any novel design are limited, inaccurate and require costly comprehensive pre-clinical and clinical trials. Therefore, there is a conclusive need for a reliable quantitative method for evaluation of SPCT, in particular for research purposes examining the thrombophlebitis-related symptoms of any novel catheter design. In this study, we developed for the first time a quantitative MRI based tool for evaluation of SPCT. The extent and severity of SPCT caused by two different commercially available SPCs with known predisposition for thrombophlebitis, were studied in a rabbit model. MRI analysis was consistent with the standardized pathology evaluation and showed remarkable difference in the percent of edema between the experimental groups. These differences were in line with previous studies and provide evidence that this type of analysis may be useful for future assessment of SPCT in vivo. As a non-invasive method, it may constitute a cost effective solution for examination of new catheters and other medical devices, thereby reducing the need for animal sacrifice.

Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters

BACKGROUND

US Centers for Disease Control guidelines recommend replacement of peripheral intravenous (IV) catheters no more frequently than every 72 to 96 hours. Routine replacement is thought to reduce the risk of phlebitis and bloodstream infection. Catheter insertion is an unpleasant experience for patients and replacement may be unnecessary if the catheter remains functional and there are no signs of inflammation. Costs associated with routine replacement may be considerable. This is an update of a review first published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of removing peripheral IV catheters when clinically indicated compared with removing and re-siting the catheter routinely.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update the Cochrane Vascular Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register (March 2015) and CENTRAL (2015, Issue 3). We also searched clinical trials registries (April 2015).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials that compared routine removal of peripheral IV catheters with removal only when clinically indicated in hospitalised or community dwelling patients receiving continuous or intermittent infusions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven trials with a total of 4895 patients were included in the review. The quality of the evidence was high for most outcomes but was downgraded to moderate for the outcome catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI). The downgrade was due to wide confidence intervals, which created a high level of uncertainty around the effect estimate. CRBSI was assessed in five trials (4806 patients). There was no significant between group difference in the CRBSI rate (clinically-indicated 1/2365; routine change 2/2441). The risk ratio (RR) was 0.61 (95% CI 0.08 to 4.68; P = 0.64). No difference in phlebitis rates was found whether catheters were changed according to clinical indications or routinely (clinically-indicated 186/2365; 3-day change 166/2441; RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.39). This result was unaffected by whether infusion through the catheter was continuous or intermittent. We also analysed the data by number of device days and again no differences between groups were observed (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.27; P = 0.75). One trial assessed all-cause bloodstream infection. There was no difference in this outcome between the two groups (clinically-indicated 4/1593 (0.02%); routine change 9/1690 (0.05%); P = 0.21). Cannulation costs were lower by approximately AUD 7.00 in the clinically-indicated group (mean difference (MD) -6.96, 95% CI -9.05 to -4.86; P ≤ 0.00001).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review found no evidence to support changing catheters every 72 to 96 hours. Consequently, healthcare organisations may consider changing to a policy whereby catheters are changed only if clinically indicated. This would provide significant cost savings and would spare patients the unnecessary pain of routine re-sites in the absence of clinical indications. To minimise peripheral catheter-related complications, the insertion site should be inspected at each shift change and the catheter removed if signs of inflammation, infiltration, or blockage are present.

IV cannula securement: protecting the patient from infection

The use of venous cannulas to administer intravenous therapy is a common clinical intervention within the hospital setting. Once in situ, IV cannulas must be securely fixed in order to prevent their movement or displacement; as unsecured cannulas pose significant health risks, such as mechanical phlebitis and an increased risk of infection. This article explores some of the complications associated with inappropriately secured IV cannulas, along with a discussion on common securement devices.

Modelling catheter-vein biomechanical interactions during an intravenous procedure

A reliable intravenous (IV) access into the upper extremity veins requires the insertion of a temporary short peripheral catheter (SPC). This so common procedure is, however, associated with a risk of developing short peripheral catheter thrombophlebitis (SPCT) which causes distress and potentially prolongs patient hospitalization. We have developed and studied a biomechanical SPC-vein computational model during an IV procedure, and explored the biomechanical effects of repeated IV episodes on onset and reoccurrences of SPCT. The model was used to determine the effects of different insertion techniques as well as inter-patient biological variability on the catheter-vein wall contact pressures and wall deformations. We found that the maximal pressure exerted upon the vein wall was inhomogeneously distributed, and that the bending region was exposed to significantly greater pressures and deformations. The maximal exerted contact pressure on the inner vein's wall was 2938 Pa. The maximal extent of the SPC penetration into the vein wall reached 3.6 μm, which corresponds to approximately 100% of the average height of the inner layer, suggesting local squashing of endothelial cells at the contact site. The modelling describes a potential biomechanical damage pathway that can explain the reoccurrence of SPCT.

Establish a perioperative check forum for peripheral intravenous access to prevent the occurrence of phlebitis

The prevalence of intravenous (IV) catheter-related infections is 0.5 per 1000 device days, and these infections cause tenderness, erythema, swelling and phlebitis. Catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI) may independently increase hospital costs and length of stay; the aim of the study was to set up a standard operating procedure (SOP) for the maintenance of peripheral vein catheter patency and the prevention of IV catheter-related complications. This is a retrospective study, enrolling patients who received anesthesia between April 2010 and January 2011. The study included 1 month of pretest phase, and 3 months each of "notification" phase, "observation" phase and "end" phase, respectively. The cannulations were set up by surgical ward nurses following the SOP on establishing peripheral intravenous catheter in our hospital. The cannulation sites were then examined before surgery and postoperatively by registered nurse anesthetists using the Baxter Scale. We also tried to set up a feedback circuit to let ward nurses know about the IV patency rate. As a result, 14,682 patients were enrolled in the study. The incidence of IV therapy-related adverse events was 0.78% in the notification phase, 0.43% in the observation phase, and 0.13% in the end phase. Overall IV therapy-related events declined significantly (p < 0.01), and the presence of phlebitis was associated with age (p < 0.05). An SOP established to assess IV patency through a checklist can reduce phlebitis and improve quality. The checklist increases ward nurses' and nurse anesthetists' awareness of IV patency, and the feedback circuit substantially reduces IV event rate.

Management, clinical outcomes, and complications of acute cannula-related peripheral vein phlebitis of the upper extremity: A retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

Acute phlebitis due to peripheral vein catheter use is frequently observed in clinical practice, and requires surgical therapy in severe cases. In this retrospective study, we aimed to increase awareness, evaluate current treatment options, and develop recommendations to optimize treatment outcomes.

METHODS

A total of 240 hospitalized patients with a diagnosis of upper extremity phlebitis from 2006 to 2011 were evaluated in terms of initial clinical features, parameters, co-morbidities and treatment regimes. Severity of phlebitis was graded according to the Baxter scale by assessing clinical symptoms such as pain, erythema, induration, swelling, or palpable venous cord (grade 0-5). Patients were divided in two subgroups: conservative (n = 132) and operative (n = 108) treatment.

RESULTS

Surgical intervention rates and severity were higher for cannula insertion in the cubital fossa region than for cannula insertion in the forearm and hand region (p < 0.05). Baxter scale grades were higher in the surgical treatment group than in the conservative treatment group (4.47 vs. 2.67, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The cubital fossa region is vulnerable to severe phlebitis and is not recommended as the first site of choice for cannulation. Phlebitis of Baxter scale grade 4 or 5 should be considered for early surgical intervention.

Infusion phlebitis assessment measures: a systematic review

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Phlebitis is a common and painful complication of peripheral intravenous cannulation. The aim of this review was to identify the measures used in infusion phlebitis assessment and evaluate evidence regarding their reliability, validity, responsiveness and feasibility.

METHOD

We conducted a systematic literature review of the Cochrane library, Ovid MEDLINE and EBSCO CINAHL until September 2013. All English-language studies (randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort and cross-sectional) that used an infusion phlebitis scale were retrieved and analysed to determine which symptoms were included in each scale and how these were measured. We evaluated studies that reported testing the psychometric properties of phlebitis assessment scales using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines.

RESULTS

Infusion phlebitis was the primary outcome measure in 233 studies. Fifty-three (23%) of these provided no actual definition of phlebitis. Of the 180 studies that reported measuring phlebitis incidence and/or severity, 101 (56%) used a scale and 79 (44%) used a definition alone. We identified 71 different phlebitis assessment scales. Three scales had undergone some psychometric analyses, but no scale had been rigorously tested.

CONCLUSION

Many phlebitis scales exist, but none has been thoroughly validated for use in clinical practice. A lack of consensus on phlebitis measures has likely contributed to disparities in reported phlebitis incidence, precluding meaningful comparison of phlebitis rates.

Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters

BACKGROUND

US Centers for Disease Control guidelines recommend replacement of peripheral intravenous (IV) catheters no more frequently than every 72 to 96 hours. Routine replacement is thought to reduce the risk of phlebitis and bloodstream infection. Catheter insertion is an unpleasant experience for patients and replacement may be unnecessary if the catheter remains functional and there are no signs of inflammation. Costs associated with routine replacement may be considerable. This is an update of a review first published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of removing peripheral IV catheters when clinically indicated compared with removing and re-siting the catheter routinely.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases (PVD) Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the PVD Specialised Register (December 2012) and CENTRAL (2012, Issue 11). We also searched MEDLINE (last searched October 2012) and clinical trials registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials that compared routine removal of peripheral IV catheters with removal only when clinically indicated in hospitalised or community dwelling patients receiving continuous or intermittent infusions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven trials with a total of 4895 patients were included in the review. Catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) was assessed in five trials (4806 patients). There was no significant between group difference in the CRBSI rate (clinically-indicated 1/2365; routine change 2/2441). The risk ratio (RR) was 0.61 but the confidence interval (CI) was wide, creating uncertainty around the estimate (95% CI 0.08 to 4.68; P = 0.64). No difference in phlebitis rates was found whether catheters were changed according to clinical indications or routinely (clinically-indicated 186/2365; 3-day change 166/2441; RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.39). This result was unaffected by whether infusion through the catheter was continuous or intermittent. We also analysed the data by number of device days and again no differences between groups were observed (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.27; P = 0.75). One trial assessed all-cause bloodstream infection. There was no difference in this outcome between the two groups (clinically-indicated 4/1593 (0.02%); routine change 9/1690 (0.05%); P = 0.21). Cannulation costs were lower by approximately AUD 7.00 in the clinically-indicated group (mean difference (MD) -6.96, 95% CI -9.05 to -4.86; P ≤ 0.00001).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review found no evidence to support changing catheters every 72 to 96 hours. Consequently, healthcare organisations may consider changing to a policy whereby catheters are changed only if clinically indicated. This would provide significant cost savings and would spare patients the unnecessary pain of routine re-sites in the absence of clinical indications. To minimise peripheral catheter-related complications, the insertion site should be inspected at each shift change and the catheter removed if signs of inflammation, infiltration, or blockage are present.

Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters

BACKGROUND

Centers for Disease Control Guidelines recommend replacement of peripheral intravenous (IV) catheters every 72 to 96 hours. Routine replacement is thought to reduce the risk of phlebitis and bacteraemia. Catheter insertion is an unpleasant experience for patients and replacement may be unnecessary if the catheter remains functional and there are no signs of inflammation. Costs associated with routine replacement may be considerable.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of removing peripheral IV catheters when clinically indicated compared with removing and re-siting the catheter routinely.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group searched their Specialised Register (last searched October 2009) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (last searched Issue Issue 4, 2009). We also searched MEDLINE (last searched October 2009).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials that compared routine removal of peripheral IV catheters with removal only when clinically indicated in hospitalised or community dwelling patients receiving continuous or intermittent infusions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

In five trials (3408 participants) there was a 44% reduction in suspected catheter-related bacteraemia in the clinically-indicated group (0.2 versus 0.4%) but this was not statistically significant (odds ratio (OR) 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.94; P = 0.37). Phlebitis was assessed in six trials (3455 patients); there was a non-significant increase in phlebitis in the clinically-indicated group (9% versus 7.2%); the OR was 1.24 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.60; P = 0.09). We also measured phlebitis per 1000 device days using data from five trials, (8779 device days). No statistical differences in the incidence of phlebitis per 1,000 device days was found (clinically indicated 1.6 cases per 1,000 catheter days versus 1.5 cases per 1,000 catheter days in the routine-replacement group).The combined OR was 1.04 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.32; P = 0.77). Cost was measured in two trials (961 patients). Cannulation costs were significantly reduced in the clinically-indicated group (mean difference (MD) -6.21; 95% CI -9.32 to -3.11; P = < 0.000).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review found no conclusive evidence of benefit in changing catheters every 72 to 96 hours. Consequently, health care organisations may consider changing to a policy whereby catheters are changed only if clinically indicated. This would provide significant cost savings and would also be welcomed by patients, who would be spared the unnecessary pain of routine re-sites in the absence of clinical indications.

COSMOS - a study comparing peripheral intravenous systems

In many areas of the world, safety peripheral intravenous systems have come into widespread use. The Madrid region was the first in Spain to adopt such an approach. These systems, though initially introduced to protect users from sharps injuries, have now evolved to include patient protection features as well. Patient protection, simply stated, means closing the system to pathogen entry. The authors' purpose was to investigate, in a prospective and randomized study, the clinical performance of a closed safe intravenous system versus an open system (COSMOS - Compact Closed System versus Mounted Open System). COSMOS is designed to provide definitive answers, from a nursing perspective, to many topics related to peripheral venous catheterization, which have important implications in intravenous therapy and which have not been validated scientifically. Furthermore, it forms pioneering research in that it is the first clinical trial on medical devices in a legislated environment carried out entirely by nurses and whose promoter and principal investigator is a nurse. The objectives of COSMOS are to compare the effectiveness (as defined by time of survival without complications) and rates of catheter-related complications, such as phlebitis, pain, extravasation, blockage and catheter-related infections. It also looks at rates of catheter colonization, the ease of handling of both systems and overall costs. This article outlines the authors' approach, both in preparing hospital units for such an evaluation as well as in the choice of parameters and their method of study. Further articles will detail the results and findings of the study.

Evidence for elective replacement of peripheral intravenous catheter to prevent thrombophlebitis: a systematic review

AIM

This paper reports a review of the scientific evidence for elective replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters in adults in the absence of any clinical complications, with the aim being to reduce the incidence and severity of thrombophlebitis.

BACKGROUND

The incidence of thrombophlebitis associated with peripheral intravenous catheters has been reported to range from 5.3% to 77.5%. Many factors that increase the risk for thrombophlebitis have been reported, of which time in situ is one. In Sweden, the recommended guideline is elective replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters every 12-24 hours.

METHOD

A systematic literature review was carried out in 2005 using the Cochrane Library, OvidMedline and CINAHL databases and hand searching of reference lists and with keywords catheterization, peripheral, thrombophlebitis and parenteral nutrition. The review included randomized controlled trials of elective replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters in adults. Three reviewers assessed the data found according to predetermined criteria.

FINDING

Three randomized control trials met the inclusion criteria and were retrieved for critical appraisal. The samples in two of the trials included patients requiring total parenteral nutrition. Patients in the third trial were receiving crystalloid and drugs. Time intervals for elective replacement varied. Study quality and relevance were rated as 'medium' in two of the trials and as 'low' in the third trial.

CONCLUSION

Limited scientific evidence suggests that elective replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters reduces the incidence and severity of thrombophlebitis.

Flebite no pré e pós-operatório de pacientes neurocirúrgicos

OBJETIVOS: Verificar a incidência de flebite em pacientes internados em uma unidade de neurocirurgia, o tempo de permanência de cateteres intravenosos periféricos e os possíveis fatores de risco para o desenvolvimento de flebite. MÉTODOS: Estudo do tipo coorte prospectivo, com uma amostra 60 pacientes, nos quais foram inseridos 152 cateteres intravenosos periféricos do tipo sobre agulha. RESULTADOS: Os resultados evidenciaram incidência de flebite de 10,5%, em relação à proporcionalidade de cateteres. O tempo de permanência dos cateteres variou de 2 a 216 horas, sendo que os cateteres com permanência inferior a 72 horas tiveram menor incidência de flebite. CONCLUSÕES: Esta incidência encontra-se acima da aceita em padrões de prática internacionais. Os fatores de risco para flebite identificados neste estudo foram: tempo de permanência maior que 72 horas, manutenção intermitente dos cateteres e inserção no período de pós-operatório.

Contamination Control in Nursing With Filtration

Filters often are viewed as screens with openings smaller than the particles intended to be removed by a process technically known as direct interception. However, filter manufacturing embraces far more advanced technological approaches, with an evolution toward selective removal of cells or soluble constituents from complex physiologic solutions. An appreciation of filtration development makes it easy to understand how differently manufactured filters with the same claims may not perform identically. This article focuses on the filtration of intravenous solutions and point-of-use hospital water.