PICC securement: minimising potential complications

A Comparison of Two Commonly Used Methods for Securing Intravenous Cannulas

BACKGROUND

There is a wide variety of techniques to secure intravenous cannulas but little objective evidence to support their relative efficacy. This study compares the security of the two most common methods used within a major Australian Emergency Department.

METHODS

The plastic sheaths of four needle-less intravenous cannulas were secured to the skin surface (not intravenously) of 40 volunteers using two different taping styles, an "under and over" method with one of the tapes applied to the posterior surface of the hub then crossed anteriorly to adhere to the opposite skin surface or "horizontal" taping with the tapes applied horizontally across the anterior surface of the hub. The peak force required to dislodge the taped cannulas using each of these different methods was then measured in both an anterograde and retrograde direction of force using a force transducer.

RESULTS

The force required to dislodge a cannula taped in an 'under and over' taping style was significantly higher than that required for the horizontal taping in both anterograde and retrograde directions of force (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that the "under and over" taping technique offers significantly more security than "horizontal" taping and should be considered as a more effective method for securing intravenous cannulas.

Devices and dressings to secure peripheral venous catheters to prevent complications

BACKGROUND

A peripheral venous catheter (PVC) is typically used for short-term delivery of intravascular fluids and medications. It is an essential element of modern medicine and the most frequent invasive procedure performed in hospitals. However, PVCs often fail before intravenous treatment is completed: this can occur because the device is not adequately attached to the skin, allowing the PVC to fall out, leading to complications such as phlebitis (irritation or inflammation to the vein wall), infiltration (fluid leaking into surrounding tissues) or occlusion (blockage). An inadequately secured PVC also increases the risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), as the pistoning action (moving back and forth in the vein) of the catheter can allow migration of organisms along the catheter and into the bloodstream. Despite the many dressings and securement devices available, the impact of different securement techniques for increasing PVC dwell time is still unclear; there is a need to provide guidance for clinicians by reviewing current studies systematically.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of PVC dressings and securement devices on the incidence of PVC failure.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases to identify reports of relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs): the Cochrane Wounds Group Register (searched 08 April 2015): The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to March 7 2015); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, March 7 2015); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to March 7 2015); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to March 8 2015).

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs or cluster RCTs comparing different dressings or securement devices for the stabilisation of PVCs. Cross-over trials were ineligible for inclusion, unless data for the first treatment period could be obtained.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for missing information. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs (1539 participants) in this review. Trial sizes ranged from 50 to 703 participants. These six trials made four comparisons, namely: transparent dressings versus gauze; bordered transparent dressings versus a securement device; bordered transparent dressings versus tape; and transparent dressing versus sticking plaster. There is very low quality evidence of fewer catheter dislodgements or accidental removals with transparent dressings compared with gauze (two studies, 278 participants, RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.92, P = 0.03%). The relative effects of transparent dressings and gauze on phlebitis (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.68) and infiltration (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.33) are unclear. The relative effects on PVC failure of a bordered transparent dressing and a securement device have been assessed in only one small study and these were unclear. There was very low quality evidence from the same single study of less frequent dislodgement or accidental catheter removal with bordered transparent dressings than securement devices (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.63) but more phlebitis with bordered dressings (RR 8.11, 95% CI 1.03 to 64.02) (very low quality evidence). A small single study compared bordered transparent dressings with tape and found very low quality evidence of more PVC failure with the bordered dressing (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.11) but the relative effects on dislodgement were not clear (very low quality evidence). The relative effects of transparent dressings and a sticking plaster have only been compared in one small study and are unclear. More high quality RCTs are required to determine the relative effects of alternative PVC dressings and securement devices.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is not clear if any one dressing or securement device is better than any other in securing peripheral venous catheters. There is a need for further, independent high quality trials to evaluate the many traditional as well as the newer, high use products. Given the large cost differences between some different dressings and securement devices, future trials should include a robust cost-effectiveness analysis.

Safety and effectiveness of central venous catheterization in patients with cancer: prospective observational study

This study investigated the safety and effectiveness of each type of central venous catheters (CVC) in patients with cancer. We prospectively enrolled patients with cancer who underwent catheterization involving a subclavian venous catheter (SVC), peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC), or chemo-port (CP) in our department. From March 2007 to March 2009, 116 patients underwent 179 episodes of catheterization. A SVC was inserted most frequently (46.4%). Fifty-four complications occurred (30.1%): infection in 23 cases, malpositioning or migration of the tip in 18 cases, thrombosis in eight cases, and bleeding in five cases. Malpositioning or migration of the tip occurred more frequently with a PICC (P<0.001); infection occurred more often with a tunneled catheter (P=0.028) and was observed more often in young patients (P=0.023). The catheter life span was longer for patients with solid cancer (P=0.002) than for those with hematologic cancer, with a CP (P<0.001) than a PICC or SVC, and for an indwelling catheter with image guidance (P=0.014) than a blind procedure. In conclusion, CP is an effective tool for long term use and the fixation of tip is important for the management of PICC.