-
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 -
Critical Care Medicine Feb 2021Midline catheters are considered "midway" regarding vascular access. The objective of this systematic review was to explore the current practice, dwell time, and...
OBJECTIVE
Midline catheters are considered "midway" regarding vascular access. The objective of this systematic review was to explore the current practice, dwell time, and complication rates of midline catheters.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
SETTING
Search on four databases, PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Embase, were conducted for English language articles published after the year 2000.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS
A total of 987 articles were identified, of which 31 manuscripts met the inclusion criteria and were selected for review. Quality assurance was performed based on the Newcastle-Ottawa score. Average dwell time and complication rates were calculated for studies involving adult patients and adjusted for sample size. This analysis included data from the placement of 18,972 midline catheters across five countries. Aside from two randomized control trials, most of the studies analyzed were cohort studies. One pediatric and two neonatal studies were included. The average dwell time was 16.3 days (n = 4,412). The adjusted mean infection rate was 0.28/1,000 catheter days, with 64% of studies not reporting any infection with midline catheter. The failure rate of midline catheters was 12.5%. Adjusted average rates of other significant complications included the following: deep vein thrombosis (4.1%), dislodgement (5.0%), occlusion (3.8%), phlebitis (3.4%), and infiltration (1.9%).
CONCLUSIONS
The dwell times and failure rates of midline catheters compare favorably against published data on other types of catheters. Their infection rates are also lower than the reported rates of central venous catheters; however, they have a higher rate of mechanical complications. Active surveillance of infections due to midline catheters is recommended. More data are needed from pediatric and neonatal populations.
Topics: Adult; Catheter Obstruction; Catheter-Related Infections; Catheterization, Central Venous; Catheters, Indwelling; Child; Critical Care; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Risk Factors; Sepsis
PubMed: 33372744
DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004764 -
International Journal of Nursing Studies Mar 2024Peripheral intravenous catheters are the most frequently used invasive device in nursing practice, yet are commonly associated with complications. We performed a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
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.
Topics: Humans; Phlebitis; Catheter-Related Infections; Catheters; Catheterization, Peripheral; Sepsis
PubMed: 38142634
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2023.104673 -
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 -
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 -
Open Forum Infectious Diseases Feb 2023Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and midlines are commonly used devices for reliable vascular access. Infection and thrombosis are the main adverse...
BACKGROUND
Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and midlines are commonly used devices for reliable vascular access. Infection and thrombosis are the main adverse effects of these catheters. We aimed to evaluate the relative risk of complications from midlines and PICCs.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. The primary outcomes were catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) and thrombosis. Secondary outcomes evaluated included mortality, failure to complete therapy, catheter occlusion, phlebitis, and catheter fracture. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
Of 8368 citations identified, 20 studies met the eligibility criteria, including 1 RCT and 19 observational studies. Midline use was associated with fewer patients with CRBSI compared with PICCs (odds ratio [OR], 0.24; 95% CI, 0.15-0.38). This association was not observed when we evaluated risk per catheter. No significant association was found between catheters when evaluating risk of localized thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. A subgroup analysis based on location of thrombosis showed higher rates of superficial venous thrombosis in patients using midlines (OR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.48-3.57). We did not identify any significant difference between midlines and PICCs for the secondary outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that patients who use midlines might experience fewer CRBSIs than those who use PICCs. However, the use of midline catheters was associated with greater risk of superficial vein thrombosis. These findings can help guide future cost-benefit analyses and direct comparative RCTs to further characterize the efficacy and risks of PICCs vs midline catheters.
PubMed: 36751645
DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofad024 -
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 -
Nursing Research 2018Peripheral venous catheters (PVCs) are commonly used in clinical practice. However, varying degrees of phlebitis often occur in patients receiving intravenous... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Peripheral venous catheters (PVCs) are commonly used in clinical practice. However, varying degrees of phlebitis often occur in patients receiving intravenous injections. The relevant literature suggests that phlebitis occurrence is highly associated with the catheter gauge, insertion site, and catheterization duration. Nevertheless, no meta-analysis has been performed on the influence of these three factors on the occurrence of phlebitis.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to determine whether any significant differences exist in the occurrence of phlebitis between catheters of 20 gauge or smaller and those larger than 20 gauge, between catheters inserted in the antecubital fossa and those inserted in other locations on the upper limbs, or between catheters inserted for more than 96 hours and those inserted for 96 hours or less.
METHODS
Using a systematic approach, we searched for literature published between 2006 and 2017 in the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PubMed, ProQuest, and Cochrane Library databases. We used Comprehensive Meta-analysis Version 2 to perform our meta-analysis. After the screening and review processes, we identified 17 studies that met our selection conditions. Among these studies, 14 contained complete data for meta-analysis. These studies involved 4,343 patients and 5,846 PVCs.
RESULTS
Regarding the overall effect size in the meta-analysis, the results of the forest plot comparing catheters of 20 gauge or smaller and those larger than 20 gauge presented a risk ratio (RR) of 0.88 (95% confidence interval [0.67, 1.17], p = .380), indicating no statistically significant difference in the occurrence of phlebitis between catheters of the aforementioned gauges. The results of the forest plot comparing catheters inserted in the antecubital fossa and those inserted in other locations on the upper limbs presented an RR of 1.05 (95% confidence interval [0.82, 1.34], p = .696), indicating no statistically significant difference in the occurrence of phlebitis between catheters inserted in the aforementioned locations. The results of the forest plot comparing catheters inserted for more than 96 hours and those inserted for 96 hours or less presented an RR of 1.13 (95% confidence interval [0.49, 2.61], p = .779), indicating no statistically significant difference in the occurrence of phlebitis between catheters inserted for the aforementioned durations.
DISCUSSION
The empirical results of this meta-analysis can serve as a reference for hospital management for selecting the PVC gauge, insertion site, and catheterization duration. In addition to the three factors that we analyzed, whether any other factors influence the occurrence of phlebitis in patients with catheter implantation is worth investigating in future research.
Topics: Catheterization, Peripheral; Catheters; Equipment Design; Humans; Phlebitis; Time Factors
PubMed: 29698331
DOI: 10.1097/NNR.0000000000000279 -
Journal of Vascular Surgery. Venous and... Jul 2023Cyanoacrylate glue closure was first used in humans 10 years ago to treat venous reflux of the axial veins. Studies have since shown its clinical efficacy in vein... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Cyanoacrylate glue closure was first used in humans 10 years ago to treat venous reflux of the axial veins. Studies have since shown its clinical efficacy in vein closure. However, great need exists to elucidate further the types of specific adverse reactions that cyanoacrylate glue can cause for better patient selection and to minimize these events. In the present study, we systematically reviewed the literature to identify the types of reported reactions. In addition, we explored the pathophysiology contributing to these reactions and proposed the mechanistic pathway with inclusion of actual cases.
METHODS
We searched the literature for reports of reactions following cyanoacrylate glue use in patients with venous diseases between 2012 and 2022. The search was performed using MeSH (medical subject headings) terms. The terms included cyanoacrylate, venous insufficiency, chronic venous disorder, varicose veins, vein varicosities, venous ulcer, venous wound, CEAP (clinical, etiologic, anatomic, pathophysiologic), vein, adverse events, phlebitis, hypersensitivity, foreign body granuloma, giant cell, endovenous glue-induced thrombosis, and allergy. The search was limited to the literature reported in English. These studies were evaluated for the type of product used and the reactions noted. A systematic review, in accordance with the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) method, was performed. Covidence software (Melbourne, VC, Australia) was used for full-text screening and data extraction. Two reviewers reviewed the data, and the content expert served as the tiebreaker.
RESULTS
We identified 102, of which, 37 reported on cyanoacrylate use other than in the context of chronic venous diseases and were excluded. Fifty-five reports were determined appropriate for data extraction. The adverse reactions to cyanoacrylate glue were phlebitis, hypersensitivity, foreign body granuloma, and endovenous glue-induced thrombosis.
CONCLUSIONS
Although cyanoacrylate glue closure for venous reflux is generally a safe and clinically effective treatment choice for patients with symptomatic chronic venous disease and axial reflux, some adverse events could be specific to the properties of the cyanoacrylate product. We propose mechanisms for how such reactions can occur based on histologic changes, published reports, and case examples; however, further exploration is necessary to confirm these theories.
Topics: Humans; Cyanoacrylates; Granuloma, Foreign-Body; Saphenous Vein; Varicose Veins; Venous Insufficiency; Treatment Outcome; Phlebitis; Hypersensitivity
PubMed: 37054883
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2023.03.018