-
Journal of Microbiology, Immunology,... Aug 2020Lemierre's syndrome, also known as post-anginal septicemia or necrobacillosis, is characterized by bacteremia, internal jugular vein thrombophlebitis, and metastatic... (Review)
Review
Lemierre's syndrome, also known as post-anginal septicemia or necrobacillosis, is characterized by bacteremia, internal jugular vein thrombophlebitis, and metastatic septic emboli secondary to acute pharyngeal infections. Modern physicians have "forgotten" this disease. The most common causative agent of Lemierre's syndrome is Fusobacterium necrophorum, followed by Fusobacterium nucleatum and anaerobic bacteria such as streptococci, staphylococci, and Klebsiella pneumoniae. The causative focus mostly originated from pharyngitis or tonsillitis, accounting for over 85% of the cases of Lemierre's syndrome. Pneumonia or pleural empyema is the most common metastatic infection in Lemierre's syndrome. Antimicrobial therapy should be prescribed for 3-6 weeks. The treatment regimens include metronidazole and β-lactam antibiotics. In recent years, the antibiotic stewardship program has resulted in decreased antibiotic prescription for upper respiratory tract infections. The incidence of Lemierre's syndrome has increased over the past decade. F. necrophorum is an underestimated cause of acute pharyngitis or tonsillitis. A high index of suspicion is required for the differential diagnosis of acute tonsillopharyngitis with persistent neck pain and septic syndrome.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteria; Bacteria, Anaerobic; Communicable Diseases, Emerging; Fusobacterium necrophorum; Humans; Lemierre Syndrome; Pharyngitis; Sepsis
PubMed: 32303484
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmii.2020.03.027 -
Journal of Advanced Nursing Dec 2020The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize and quantify peripheral intravenous catheter-related complications. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize and quantify peripheral intravenous catheter-related complications.
DESIGN
This systematic review is reported by means of the Cochrane process for randomized controlled trials and the Meta-analysis of Observation Studies in Epidemiology for cohort studies.
DATA SOURCES
The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, CINAHL and EMBASE databases, clinical trial registries such as ClinicalTrials.gov and the reference list of included studies were searched from 2000 -April 2019.
REVIEW METHODS
Using a purpose designed data extraction tool, two authors independently identified studies for full review, data extraction and quality assessment. Dichotomous outcomes were pooled after Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation using random-effects meta-analysis; estimates of heterogeneity were taken from inverse-variance fixed-effect models.
RESULTS
Seventy observational studies and 33 randomized controlled trials were included (76,977 catheters). Peripheral intravenous catheter-related complications were as follows: phlebitis (with definition) 19.3%, phlebitis (without definition) 4.5%, infiltration/extravasation 13.7%, occlusion 8%, leakage 7.3%, pain 6.4% and dislodgement 6.0%. Subgroup analysis found infiltration/extravasation for emergency department-inserted catheters was significantly higher (25.2%; p = .022) than for those inserted in other departments and pain was significantly higher (p < .001) in countries with developing economies compared with developed economies.
CONCLUSION
Peripheral intravenous catheter complications are unacceptably common worldwide. This review suggests substantial and multi-specialty efforts are needed to address the sequalae associated with complications. The potential benefits for patients and health services are considerable if complications are reduced.
IMPACT
Peripheral intravenous complications interrupt important treatment which can be distressing for patients and result in longer hospital stays with increased healthcare costs. This review found phlebitis and infiltration are the most prevalent reason for catheter failure. These results provide nurses with a strong evidence base for the development of effective interventions for practice which are vital for preventing poor outcomes for patients with peripheral intravenous catheters.
Topics: Adult; Catheterization, Peripheral; Catheters; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Phlebitis
PubMed: 33016412
DOI: 10.1111/jan.14565 -
Revista Da Escola de Enfermagem Da U S P 2022To identify risk factors for peripheral intravenous catheter-related phlebitis in adult patients. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
OBJECTIVE
To identify risk factors for peripheral intravenous catheter-related phlebitis in adult patients.
METHOD
This is a post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial, totaling 1,319 patients. Demographic and clinical variables related to therapy and phlebitis were investigated. For data analysis, frequencies, measures of central tendency and dispersion were calculated, and Pearson's chi-square test and Fisher's exact test were used, with logistic regression, ROC curve, and Odds Ratio calculation (95% confidence interval; 5% significance level) being implemented.
RESULTS
Of the 1,319 participants, 80 (6.1%) developed phlebitis. The following were associated with the occurrence of phlebitis: reduced mobility (p = 0.015), family history of deep vein thrombosis (p = 0.05), catheterization of veins on the back of the hand (p = 0.012), pain (p < 0.01), Amoxicillin-Potassium Clavulanate (p = 0.015), and Omeprazole Sodium (p = 0.029).
CONCLUSION
Risk factors for phlebitis involved intrinsic and extrinsic factors to the patient, indicating preventive nursing interventions such as promoting patient mobility, not catheterizing veins in the dorsal arch of the hand, cautious infusion of risk drugs, and valuing pain complaints.
Topics: Adult; Catheterization, Peripheral; Catheters; Humans; Pain; Phlebitis; Risk Factors
PubMed: 35724261
DOI: 10.1590/1980-220X-REEUSP-2021-0398en -
Nursing Open Mar 2023To systematically evaluate the efficacy of different topical treatments for PVC-related phlebitis in hospital in-patients. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
To systematically evaluate the efficacy of different topical treatments for PVC-related phlebitis in hospital in-patients.
DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
A selection was made of experimental and quasi-experimental studies published in English or Spanish. These should provide data on the degree of phlebitis, pain and infiltration (means and standard deviations, mainly) of hospitalized patients with phlebitis secondary to peripheral venous catheter. All those studies that reflected systemic or exclusive prevention treatments were excluded. Searches were from inception to April 2020. The date of data collection was from December 2020 to May 2021. The selection criteria were based on the PICOS model. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool.
RESULTS
Twelve studies (726 patients) met the inclusion criteria. With respect to the decrease in the degree of phlebitis, was found ichthammol glycerine, followed by heparinoids. As for degree of pain, sesame oil obtained the most marked reduction. In terms of degree of infiltration, heparinoids and ichthammol glycerine were the only products to achieve a statistically significant reduction. The most important limitations are the low quantity and quality of the trials included. Insufficient data are available to draw valid conclusions about the efficacy of any treatment.
Topics: Humans; Heparinoids; Glycerol; Catheters; Phlebitis
PubMed: 36335576
DOI: 10.1002/nop2.1449 -
The New England Journal of Medicine Mar 2019
Topics: Adolescent; Chest Pain; Fusobacterium necrophorum; Humans; Jugular Veins; Lemierre Syndrome; Lung; Male; Radiography, Thoracic; Thrombophlebitis; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 30893539
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMicm1808378 -
Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) May 2021The objective of this work was to identify available evidence on nursing interventions for the prevention and treatment of phlebitis secondary to the insertion of a... (Review)
Review
The objective of this work was to identify available evidence on nursing interventions for the prevention and treatment of phlebitis secondary to the insertion of a peripheral venous catheter. For this, a scoping systematic review was carried out following the guidelines in the PRISMA declaration of documents published between January 2015 and December 2020. The search took place between December 2020 and January 2021. Scielo, Pubmed, Medline, Scopus, WOS, CINHAL, LILACS, and Dialnet databases were consulted, and CASPe, AGREE, and HICPAC tools were used for the critical reading. A total of 52 studies were included to analyze nursing interventions for treatment and prevention. Nursing interventions to prevent phlebitis and ensure a proper catheter use included those related to the maintenance of intravenous therapy, asepsis, and choosing the dressing. With regard to the nursing interventions to treat phlebitis, these were focused on vigilance and caring and also on the use of medical treatment protocols. For the prevention of phlebitis, the highest rated evidence regarding asepsis include the topical use of >0.5% chlorhexidine preparation with 70% alcohol or 2% aqueous chlorhexidine, a proper hygienic hand washing, and the use clean gloves to handle connections and devices. Actions that promote the efficacy and safety of intravenous therapy include maintenance of venous access, infusion volume control, verification of signs of phlebitis during saline solution and medication administration, and constant monitoring. It is recommended to remove any catheter that is not essential. Once discharged from hospital, it will be necessary to warn the patient about signs of phlebitis after PVC removal.
PubMed: 34069674
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare9050611 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2018The optimal treatment of superficial thrombophlebitis (ST) of the legs remains poorly defined. While improving or relieving the local painful symptoms, treatment should... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The optimal treatment of superficial thrombophlebitis (ST) of the legs remains poorly defined. While improving or relieving the local painful symptoms, treatment should aim at preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE), which might complicate the natural history of ST. This is the third update of a review first published in 2007.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of topical, medical, and surgical treatments for ST of the leg in improving local symptoms and decreasing thromboembolic complications.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register (March 2017), CENTRAL (2017, Issue 2), and trials registries (March 2017). We handsearched the reference lists of relevant papers and conference proceedings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating topical, medical, and surgical treatments for ST of the legs that included people with a clinical diagnosis of ST of the legs or objective diagnosis of a thrombus in a superficial vein.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors assessed the trials for inclusion in the review, extracted the data, and assessed the quality of the studies. Data were independently extracted from the included studies and any disagreements resolved by consensus. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified three additional trials (613 participants), therefore this update considered 33 studies involving 7296 people with ST of the legs. Treatment included fondaparinux; rivaroxaban; low molecular weight heparin (LMWH); unfractionated heparin (UFH); non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs); compression stockings; and topical, intramuscular, or intravenous treatment to surgical interventions such as thrombectomy or ligation. Only a minority of trials compared treatment with placebo rather than an alternative treatment and many studies were small and of poor quality. Pooling of the data was possible for few outcomes, and none were part of a placebo-controlled trial. In one large, placebo-controlled RCT of 3002 participants, subcutaneous fondaparinux was associated with a significant reduction in symptomatic VTE (risk ratio (RR) 0.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.50; moderate-quality evidence), ST extension (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.22; moderate-quality evidence), and ST recurrence (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.54; moderate-quality evidence) relative to placebo. Major bleeding was infrequent in both groups with very wide CIs around risk estimate (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.86; moderate-quality evidence). In one RCT on 472 high-risk participants with ST, fondaparinux was associated with a non-significant reduction of symptomatic VTE compared to rivaroxaban 10 mg (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.18; low-quality evidence). There were no major bleeding events in either group (low-quality evidence). In another placebo-controlled trial, both prophylactic and therapeutic doses of LMWH (prophylactic: RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.74; therapeutic: RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.77) and NSAIDs (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.78) reduced the extension (low-quality evidence) and recurrence of ST (low-quality evidence) in comparison to placebo, with no significant effects on symptomatic VTE (low-quality evidence) or major bleeding (low-quality evidence). Overall, topical treatments improved local symptoms compared with placebo, but no data were provided on the effects on VTE and ST extension. Surgical treatment combined with elastic stockings was associated with a lower VTE rate and ST progression compared with elastic stockings alone. However, the majority of studies that compared different oral treatments, topical treatments, or surgery did not report VTE, ST progression, adverse events, or treatment adverse effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Prophylactic dose fondaparinux given for 45 days appears to be a valid therapeutic option for ST of the legs for most people. The evidence on topical treatment or surgery is too limited and does not inform clinical practice about the effects of these treatments in terms of VTE. Further research is needed to assess the role of rivaroxaban and other direct oral factor-X or thrombin inhibitors, LMWH, and NSAIDs; the optimal doses and duration of treatment in people at various risk of recurrence; and whether a combination therapy may be more effective than single treatment. Adequately designed and conducted studies are required to clarify the role of topical and surgical treatments.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Anticoagulants; Factor Xa Inhibitors; Fondaparinux; Hemorrhage; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Polysaccharides; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rivaroxaban; Stockings, Compression; Thrombectomy; Thromboembolism; Thrombophlebitis; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 29478266
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004982.pub6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2019US Centers for Disease Control guidelines recommend replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVC) no more frequently than every 72 to 96 hours. Routine... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
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.
Topics: Catheter-Related Infections; Catheterization, Peripheral; Catheters, Indwelling; Device Removal; Guideline Adherence; Humans; Incidence; Phlebitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thrombophlebitis; Time Factors
PubMed: 30671926
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007798.pub5 -
Infection, Disease & Health Aug 2019Evidence-based bundles have reduced central line bloodstream infection rates in adult intensive care units. To tackle peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) bloodstream... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Effectiveness of insertion and maintenance bundles in preventing peripheral intravenous catheter-related complications and bloodstream infection in hospital patients: A systematic review.
BACKGROUND
Evidence-based bundles have reduced central line bloodstream infection rates in adult intensive care units. To tackle peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) bloodstream infection, many hospitals have implemented PIVC insertion and maintenance bundles. However, the efficacy of PIVC bundles in preventing PIVC complications and infection in hospital patients is uncertain. The aim of this paper is to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of PIVC insertion and maintenance bundles on preventing adverse events.
METHODS
In this systematic review, we searched multiple electronic databases, trial registries, and grey literature for eligible studies published in English (January 2000-December 2018) to identify intervention studies evaluating PIVC insertion or maintenance bundles with two or more components. Search terms: peripheral intravenous catheter/cannula, insertion, maintenance, bundle, infection, infiltration, extravasation, dislodgement, thrombosis, occlusion, and phlebitis. Two reviewers independently conducted data extraction and quality assessments using the Downs and Black checklist.
RESULTS
Of 14,456 records screened, 13 studies (6 interrupted time-series, 7 before-and-after) were included. Insertion and maintenance bundles included multiple components (2-7 items per bundle). Despite testing different bundles, 12 studies reported reductions in phlebitis and bloodstream infection, and one study reported no change in bloodstream infection and an increase in phlebitis rate. Methodological quality of all studies ranked between 'low' and 'fair'.
CONCLUSIONS
The effect of PIVC bundles on PIVC complications and bloodstream infection rates remains uncertain. Standardisation of bundle components and more rigorous studies are needed. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017075142.
Topics: Bacteremia; Catheter-Related Infections; Catheterization, Peripheral; Evidence-Based Practice; Hospitalization; Humans; Phlebitis
PubMed: 31005606
DOI: 10.1016/j.idh.2019.03.001