Effect of Intrafix® SafeSet infusion apparatus on phlebitis in a neurological intensive care unit: a case-control study

Application via mechanical dropper alleviates sufentanil-induced cough: a prospective, randomized, single-blinded trial

Background

It was reported that prolonging the injection time or diluting administration can reduce the incidence of opioid-induced cough. However, the incidence of sufentanil-induced cough (SIC) via a standardized infusion rate is unclear. A mechanical dropper is an infusion filtering device commonly used for intravenous degassing; it can also be used to administer special drugs due to its temporary storage and dilution effect. This study assesses the effectiveness of administration via mechanical dropper on SIC.

Methods

Two hundred patients undergoing general anesthesia were enrolled. Patients received sufentanil at a strength of 0.3 μg·kg^− 1 either via T-connector (group C) or by mechanical dropper (group M) at 1 ml·s^− 1. Cough severity was graded as none (0), mild (1–2), moderate (3–5), or severe (> 5), and the incidence of SIC was evaluated for 5 min after the start of sufentanil injection. Other adverse reactions such as hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, tachycardia, hypoxemia, vomiting, and aspiration during the induction period of general anesthesia were also observed. The primary outcome was the incidence of SIC. The secondary outcomes were the severity of SIC and other adverse reactions.

Results

The incidence of SIC in group M was significantly lower than that in group C (2% versus 21%, P = 0.000), and the prevalence of moderately severe coughing was also statistically different (none in group M versus 11% in group C, P = 0.001). However, there were no statistical differences in the incidence of other adverse reactions between two groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Sufentanil application via mechanical dropper can significantly alleviate the occurrence of SIC during the induction phase of total intravenous general anesthesia. This method is simple, safe, and reliable, and has wide prospective application for clinical use.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Register, ChiCTR-IOR-17011561. Registered on 3 June 2017.

Risk factors for the development of phlebitis: an integrative review of literature

OBJECTIVE

To describe the scientific evidence published in literature regarding the risk factors for the development of phlebitis.

METHOD

Integrative literature review with the inclusion of 14 original articles found in the LILACS, Scielo and Pubmed bases from January 2004 to April 2015, analyzed by levels of evidence and frequency, associated factors, degree and treatment of phlebitis.

RESULTS

The frequency / incidence / minimum rate of phlebitis was 3% and the maximum was 59.1%. Most articles (57.14%) reported an association of phlebitis with risk factors, including the dwell time, puncture site and / or anatomical region, hospitalization period, number of accesses, reason for removal, sex, antibiotics, intermittent maintenance and emergency insertion.

CONCLUSIONS

The need for standardizing the quantification of this event and a weak connection between the risk factors associated with phlebitis were identified. Further studies need to be developed in order to grant a real understanding of this disease in the daily routines of a hospital.

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.