The risk of peripheral vein phlebitis associated with chlorhexidine-coated catheters: a randomized, double-blind trial

Vascular access specialist teams for device insertion and prevention of failure

BACKGROUND

Most people admitted to hospitals worldwide require a vascular access device (VAD). Hundreds of millions of VADs are inserted annually in the USA with reports of over a billion peripheral intravenous catheters used annually worldwide. Numerous reports suggest that a team approach for the assessment, insertion, and maintenance of VADs improves clinical outcomes, the patient experience, and healthcare processes.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the use of the vascular access specialist team (VAST) for VAD insertion and care to a generalist model approach for hospital or community participants requiring a VAD in terms of insertion success, device failure, and cost-effectiveness.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to 7 February 2018); Ovid Embase (1980 to 7 February 2018); EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 7 February 2018); Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science and Social Science and Humanities (1990 to 7 February 2018); and Google Scholar. We searched the following trial registries: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (www.anzctr.org.au); ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov); Current Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com/mrct); HKU Clinical Trials Registry (www.hkclinicaltrials.com); Clinical Trials Registry - India (ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/login.php); UK Clinical Trials Gateway (www.controlled-trials.com/ukctr/); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) (www.who.int/trialsearch). We searched all databases on 7 February 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness of VAST or specialist inserters for their impact on clinical outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane and used Covidence software to assist with file management.

MAIN RESULTS

We retrieved 2398 citations: 30 studies were eligible for further examination of their full text, and we found one registered clinical trial in progress. No studies could be included in the analysis or review. We assigned one study as awaiting classification, as it has not been accepted for publication.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review failed to locate relevant published RCTs to support or refute the assertion that vascular access specialist teams are superior to the generalist model. A vascular access specialist team has advanced knowledge with regard to insertion techniques, clinical care, and management of vascular access devices, whereas a generalist model comprises nurses, doctors, or other designated healthcare professionals in the healthcare facility who may have less advanced insertion techniques and who care for vascular access devices amongst other competing clinical tasks. However, this conclusion may change once the one study awaiting classification and one ongoing study are published. There is a need for good-quality RCTs to evaluate the efficacy of a vascular access specialist team approach for vascular access device insertion and care for the prevention of failure.

Catheter impregnation, coating or bonding for reducing central venous catheter-related infections in adults

BACKGROUND

The central venous catheter (CVC) is essential in managing acutely ill patients in hospitals. Bloodstream infection is a major complication in patients with a CVC. Several infection control measures have been developed to reduce bloodstream infections, one of which is impregnation of CVCs with various forms of antimicrobials (either with an antiseptic or with antibiotics). This review was originally published in June 2013 and updated in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

Our main objective was to assess the effectiveness of antimicrobial impregnation, coating or bonding on CVCs in reducing clinically-diagnosed sepsis, catheter-related blood stream infection (CRBSI), all-cause mortality, catheter colonization and other catheter-related infections in adult participants who required central venous catheterization, along with their safety and cost effectiveness where data were available. We undertook the following comparisons: 1) catheters with antimicrobial modifications in the form of antimicrobial impregnation, coating or bonding, against catheters without antimicrobial modifications and 2) catheters with one type of antimicrobial impregnation against catheters with another type of antimicrobial impregnation. We planned to analyse the comparison of catheters with any type of antimicrobial impregnation against catheters with other antimicrobial modifications, e.g. antiseptic dressings, hubs, tunnelling, needleless connectors or antiseptic lock solutions, but did not find any relevant studies. Additionally, we planned to conduct subgroup analyses based on the length of catheter use, settings or levels of care (e.g. intensive care unit, standard ward and oncology unit), baseline risks, definition of sepsis, presence or absence of co-interventions and cost-effectiveness in different currencies.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Anaesthesia, Critical and Emergency Care Review Group (ACE). In the updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE (OVID SP; 1950 to March 2015), EMBASE (1980 to March 2015), CINAHL (1982 to March 2015), and other Internet resources using a combination of keywords and MeSH headings. The original search was run in March 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed any type of impregnated catheter against either non-impregnated catheters or catheters with another type of impregnation in adult patients cared for in the hospital setting who required CVCs. We planned to include quasi-RCT and cluster-RCTs, but we identified none. We excluded cross-over studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data using the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently assessed the relevance and risk of bias of the retrieved records. We expressed our results using risk ratio (RR), absolute risk reduction (ARR) and number need to treat to benefit (NNTB) for categorical data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, where appropriate, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included one new study (338 participants/catheters) in this update, which brought the total included to 57 studies with 16,784 catheters and 11 types of impregnations. The total number of participants enrolled was unclear, as some studies did not provide this information. Most studies enrolled participants from the age of 18, including patients in intensive care units (ICU), oncology units and patients receiving long-term total parenteral nutrition. There were low or unclear risks of bias in the included studies, except for blinding, which was impossible in most studies due to the catheters that were being assessed having different appearances. Overall, catheter impregnation significantly reduced catheter-related blood stream infection (CRBSI), with an ARR of 2% (95% CI 3% to 1%), RR of 0.62 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.74) and NNTB of 50 (high-quality evidence). Catheter impregnation also reduced catheter colonization, with an ARR of 9% (95% CI 12% to 7%), RR of 0.67 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.76) and NNTB of 11 (moderate-quality evidence, downgraded due to substantial heterogeneity). However, catheter impregnation made no significant difference to the rates of clinically diagnosed sepsis (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.13; moderate-quality evidence, downgraded due to a suspicion of publication bias), all-cause mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07; high-quality evidence) and catheter-related local infections (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.07; 2688 catheters, moderate quality evidence, downgraded due to wide 95% CI).In our subgroup analyses, we found that the magnitudes of benefits for impregnated CVCs varied between studies that enrolled different types of participants. For the outcome of catheter colonization, catheter impregnation conferred significant benefit in studies conducted in ICUs (RR 0.70;95% CI 0.61 to 0.80) but not in studies conducted in haematological and oncological units (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.51 to 1.11) or studies that assessed predominantly patients who required CVCs for long-term total parenteral nutrition (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.34). However, there was no such variation for the outcome of CRBSI. The magnitude of the effects was also not affected by the participants' baseline risks.There were no significant differences between the impregnated and non-impregnated groups in the rates of adverse effects, including thrombosis/thrombophlebitis, bleeding, erythema and/or tenderness at the insertion site.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review confirms the effectiveness of antimicrobial CVCs in reducing rates of CRBSI and catheter colonization. However, the magnitude of benefits regarding catheter colonization varied according to setting, with significant benefits only in studies conducted in ICUs. A comparatively smaller body of evidence suggests that antimicrobial CVCs do not appear to reduce clinically diagnosed sepsis or mortality significantly. Our findings call for caution in routinely recommending the use of antimicrobial-impregnated CVCs across all settings. Further randomized controlled trials assessing antimicrobial CVCs should include important clinical outcomes like the overall rates of sepsis and mortality.

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.

The risk of bloodstream infection in adults with different intravascular devices: a systematic review of 200 published prospective studies

OBJECTIVE

To better understand the absolute and relative risks of bloodstream Infection (BSI) associated with the various types of intravascular devices (IVDs), we analyzed 200 published studies of adults In which every device in the study population was prospectively evaluated for evidence of associated infection and microbiologically based criteria were used to define IVD-related BSI.

METHODS

English-language reports of prospective studies of adults published between January 1, 1966, and July 1, 2005, were identified by MEDLINE search using the following general search strategy: bacteremla [Medical Subject Heading, MeSH] OR septicemia [MeSH] OR bloodstream Infection AND the specific type of intravascular device (e.g., central venous port). Mean rates of IVD-related BSI were calculated from pooled data for each type of device and expressed as BSIs per 100 IVDs (%) and per 1000 IVD days.

RESULTS

Point incidence rates of IVD-related BSI were lowest with peripheral Intravenous catheters (0.1%, 0.5 per 1000 IVD-days) and midline catheters (0.4%, 0.2 per 1000 catheter-days). Far higher rates were seen with short-term noncuffed and nonmedicated central venous catheters (CVCs) (4.4%, 2.7 per 1000 catheter-days). Arterial catheters used for hemodynamic monitoring (0.8%, 1.7 per 1000 catheter-days) and peripherally inserted central catheters used in hospitalized patients (2.4%, 2.1 per 1000 catheter-days) posed risks approaching those seen with short-term conventional CVCs used in the Intensive care unit. Surgically implanted long-term central venous devices--cuffed and tunneled catheters (22.5%, 1.6 per 1000 IVD-days) and central venous ports (3.6%, 0.1 per 1000 IVD-days)--appear to have high rates of Infection when risk Is expressed as BSIs per 100 IVDs but actually pose much lower risk when rates are expressed per 1000 IVD-days. The use of cuffed and tunneled dual lumen CVCs rather than noncuffed, nontunneled catheters for temporary hemodlalysis and novel preventive technologies, such as CVCs with anti-infective surfaces, was associated with considerably lower rates of catheter-related BSI.

CONCLUSIONS

Expressing risk of IVD-related BSI per 1000 IVD-days rather than BSIs per 100 IVDs allows for more meaningful estimates of risk. These data, based on prospective studies In which every IVD in the study cohort was analyzed for evidence of infection by microbiologically based criteria, show that all types of IVDs pose a risk of IVD-related BSI and can be used for benchmarking rates of infection caused by the various types of IVDs In use at the present time. Since almost all the national effort and progress to date to reduce the risk of IVD-related Infection have focused on short-term noncuffed CVCs used in Intensive care units, Infection control programs must now strive to consistently apply essential control measures and preventive technologies with all types of IVDs.

Novel methods for the prevention of infection of intravascular devices

Infections are often caused by bacteria that gain access either from the skin during insertion, or by migration from the skin to the surrounding subcutaneous tissue, once in situ. It is necessary to understand the pathogenesis with regard to sessile or planktonic forms of microorganisms and why they adhere to catheter surfaces, and the interactions between host, catheter and bug. To prevent colonization two general approaches have been adopted: the first concerns the site of insertion-prophylactic antibiotics, tunnelling, intraluminal antibiotic locks, topical application of antibiotics or antiseptics, cutaneous disinfection pre- and post-insertion with various antiseptics, catheter site care and frequency of dressing changes. The second approach considers the physical nature of catheter material-silver impregnated subcutaneous collagen cuffs, antiseptic hubs, antimicrobial coating of catheters with antibiotics e.g., rifampicin and minocycline, silver ions, chlorhexidine, chlorhexidine and silver sulphadiazine. Only by understanding the pathogenesis of catheter devices whereby micro-organisms are embedded in biofilms and are resistant to the action of antibiotics, will effective preventative measures be possible. In addition a proper risk-management review will be necessary to determine the cost-benefit of such modified catheters.