-
Infectious Disease Clinics of North... Sep 2017Central venous catheters (CVCs) are commonly used in critically ill patients and offer several advantages to peripheral intravenous access. However, indwelling CVCs have... (Review)
Review
Central venous catheters (CVCs) are commonly used in critically ill patients and offer several advantages to peripheral intravenous access. However, indwelling CVCs have the potential to lead to bloodstream infections, with the risk increasing with an array of characteristics, such as catheter choice, catheter location, insertion technique, and catheter maintenance. Evidence-based guidelines have led to a significant reduction in the incidence of bloodstream infections associated with CVCs. The combination of guideline implementation and newer technologies has the potential to further reduce morbidity and mortality from infections related to CVCs.
Topics: Bacteremia; Catheter-Related Infections; Catheterization, Central Venous; Catheters, Indwelling; Central Venous Catheters; Cross Infection; Humans; Incidence; Intensive Care Units
PubMed: 28687213
DOI: 10.1016/j.idc.2017.05.007 -
British Journal of Nursing (Mark Allen...Patients admitted to acute care frequently require intravenous access to effectively deliver medications and prescribed treatment. For patients with difficult...
Patients admitted to acute care frequently require intravenous access to effectively deliver medications and prescribed treatment. For patients with difficult intravenous access, those requiring multiple attempts, those who are obese, or have diabetes or other chronic conditions, determining the vascular access device (VAD) with the lowest risk that best meets the needs of the treatment plan can be confusing. Selection of a VAD should be based on specific indications for that device. In the clinical setting, requests for central venous access devices are frequently precipitated simply by failure to establish peripheral access. Selection of the most appropriate VAD is necessary to avoid the potentially serious complications of infection and/or thrombosis. An international panel of experts convened to establish a guide for indications and appropriate usage for VADs. This publication summarises the work and recommendations of the panel for the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC).
Topics: Bacteremia; Catheter-Related Infections; Catheterization, Central Venous; Catheterization, Peripheral; Central Venous Catheters; Humans; Michigan; Postoperative Complications; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Risk Factors; Surgery, Computer-Assisted; Ultrasonography, Interventional; Upper Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis; Vascular Access Devices
PubMed: 27126759
DOI: 10.12968/bjon.2016.25.8.S15 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2016The central venous catheter (CVC) is a device used for many functions, including monitoring haemodynamic indicators and administering intravenous medications, fluids,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The central venous catheter (CVC) is a device used for many functions, including monitoring haemodynamic indicators and administering intravenous medications, fluids, blood products and parenteral nutrition. However, as a foreign object, it is susceptible to colonisation by micro-organisms, which may lead to catheter-related blood stream infection (BSI) and in turn, increased mortality, morbidities and health care costs.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of skin antisepsis as part of CVC care for reducing catheter-related BSIs, catheter colonisation, and patient mortality and morbidities.
SEARCH METHODS
In May 2016 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Epub Ahead of Print); Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trial registries for ongoing and unpublished studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed any type of skin antiseptic agent used either alone or in combination, compared with one or more other skin antiseptic agent(s), placebo or no skin antisepsis in patients with a CVC in place.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed the studies for their eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We expressed our results in terms of risk ratio (RR), absolute risk reduction (ARR) and number need to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS
Thirteen studies were eligible for inclusion, but only 12 studies contributed data, with a total of 3446 CVCs assessed. The total number of participants enrolled was unclear as some studies did not provide such information. The participants were mainly adults admitted to intensive care units, haematology oncology units or general wards. Most studies assessed skin antisepsis prior to insertion and regularly thereafter during the in-dwelling period of the CVC, ranging from every 24 h to every 72 h. The methodological quality of the included studies was mixed due to wide variation in their risk of bias. Most trials did not adequately blind the participants or personnel, and four of the 12 studies had a high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data.Three studies compared different antisepsis regimens with no antisepsis. There was no clear evidence of a difference in all outcomes examined, including catheter-related BSI, septicaemia, catheter colonisation and number of patients who required systemic antibiotics for any of the three comparisons involving three different antisepsis regimens (aqueous povidone-iodine, aqueous chlorhexidine and alcohol compared with no skin antisepsis). However, there were great uncertainties in all estimates due to underpowered analyses and the overall very low quality of evidence presented.There were multiple head-to-head comparisons between different skin antiseptic agents, with different combinations of active substance and base solutions. The most frequent comparison was chlorhexidine solution versus povidone-iodine solution (any base). There was very low quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision) that chlorhexidine may reduce catheter-related BSI compared with povidone-iodine (RR of 0.64, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.99; ARR 2.30%, 95% CI 0.06 to 3.70%). This evidence came from four studies involving 1436 catheters. None of the individual subgroup comparisons of aqueous chlorhexidine versus aqueous povidone-iodine, alcoholic chlorhexidine versus aqueous povidone-iodine and alcoholic chlorhexidine versus alcoholic povidone-iodine showed clear differences for catheter-related BSI or mortality (and were generally underpowered). Mortality was only reported in a single study.There was very low quality evidence that skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine may also reduce catheter colonisation relative to povidone-iodine (RR of 0.68, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.84; ARR 8%, 95% CI 3% to 12%; ; five studies, 1533 catheters, downgraded for risk of bias, indirectness and inconsistency).Evaluations of other skin antiseptic agents were generally in single, small studies, many of which did not report the primary outcome of catheter-related BSI. Trials also poorly reported other outcomes, such as skin infections and adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It is not clear whether cleaning the skin around CVC insertion sites with antiseptic reduces catheter related blood stream infection compared with no skin cleansing. Skin cleansing with chlorhexidine solution may reduce rates of CRBSI and catheter colonisation compared with cleaning with povidone iodine. These results are based on very low quality evidence, which means the true effects may be very different. Moreover these results may be influenced by the nature of the antiseptic solution (i.e. aqueous or alcohol-based). Further RCTs are needed to assess the effectiveness and safety of different skin antisepsis regimens in CVC care; these should measure and report critical clinical outcomes such as sepsis, catheter-related BSI and mortality.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Antisepsis; Catheter-Related Infections; Central Venous Catheters; Chlorhexidine; Ethanol; Humans; Povidone-Iodine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Skin
PubMed: 27410189
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010140.pub2 -
Medicine Jul 2020Since the first description of the central venous catheter (CVC) in 1952, it has been used for the rapid administration of drugs, chemotherapy, as a route for... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
BACKGROUND
Since the first description of the central venous catheter (CVC) in 1952, it has been used for the rapid administration of drugs, chemotherapy, as a route for nutritional support, blood components, monitoring patients, or combinations of these. When CVC is used in the traditional routes (eg, subclavian, jugular, and femoral veins), the complication rates range up to 15% and are mainly due to mechanical dysfunction, infection, and thrombosis. The peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) is an alternative option for CVC access. However, the clinical evidence for PICC compared to CVC is still under discussion. In this setting, this systematic review (SR) aims to assess the effects of PICC compared to CVC for intravenous access.
METHODS
We will perform a comprehensive search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which compare PICC and traditional CVC for intravenous access. The search strategy will consider free text terms and controlled vocabulary (eg, MeSH and Entree) related to "peripherally inserted central venous catheter," "central venous access," "central venous catheter," "catheterisation, peripheral," "vascular access devices," "infusions, intravenous," "administration, intravenous," and "injections, intravenous." Searches will be carried out in these databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE (via Elsevier), Cochrane CENTRAL (via Wiley), IBECS, and LILACS (both via Virtual Health Library). We will consider catheter-related deep venous thrombosis and overall successful insertion rates as primary outcomes and haematoma, venous thromboembolism, reintervention derived from catheter dysfunction, catheter-related infections, and quality of life as secondary outcomes. Where results are not appropriate for a meta-analysis using RevMan 5 software (eg, if the data have considerable heterogeneity and are drawn from different comparisons), a descriptive analysis will be performed.
RESULTS
Our SR will be conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the findings will be reported in compliance with PRISMA.
CONCLUSION
Our study will provide evidence for the effects of PICC versus CVC for venous access.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION
This SR has obtained formal ethical approval and was prospectively registered in Open Science Framework. The findings of this SR will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications or conference presentations. REGISTRATION:: osf.io/xvhzf.
ETHICAL APPROVAL
69003717.2.0000.5505.
Topics: Catheterization, Central Venous; Catheterization, Peripheral; Central Venous Catheters; Humans; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 32791657
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000020352 -
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 -
Journal of Healthcare Engineering 2022In order to provide reference for the prevention and treatment of CRBSI during clinical intravenous infusion therapy, this paper investigates the incidence of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
In order to provide reference for the prevention and treatment of CRBSI during clinical intravenous infusion therapy, this paper investigates the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) in the treatment of midline catheters (MCs) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) by intravenous infusion. Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest are searched to collect CRBSI-related studies on MC and PICC. The retrieval time is from the database construction to August 2020. Two researchers independently searched and screened literature quality evaluation and extracted data according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and RevMan 5.3 software was used for analysis. Eleven studies are included, with a total of 33809 patients. The incidence of CRBSI in the MC group is 0.599% (43/7079), and that in the PICC group is 0.4993% (133/26630). Meta-analysis showed that the incidence of CRBSI in the MC group is higher than that in the PICC group (OR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.43-1.08, =0.11), and the difference is statistically significant when low-quality studies are excluded (OR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.39-0.93, =0.02). There is no significant difference in the incidence of CRBSI between MC group and PICC group ( > 0.05), American subgroup (OR = 0.52), and British subgroup (OR = 4.86), the results of the two groups are opposite, and the incidence of CRBSI between the MC group and PICC group is statistically significant. There is no significant difference in the incidence of CRBSI between the adult and other subgroups (all > 0.05). There is no significant difference in the incidence of CRBSI between the MC group and the PICC group ( > 0.05). Overall, the inter-study stability is general, the quality is good and the medium is good, and there is no obvious publication bias. The risk of CRBSI in MC and PICC is systematically evaluated and meta-analyzed for the first time. The incidence of CRBSI in MC group is lower than that in PICC group during intravenous infusion therapy. Under the same conditions, MC patients can be given priority for intravenous infusion therapy. More high-quality and child-related studies are needed to further evaluate and explore the risk of CRBSI between MC and PICC.
Topics: Adult; Catheter-Related Infections; Catheterization, Peripheral; Catheters; Humans; Incidence; Sepsis
PubMed: 35313516
DOI: 10.1155/2022/6383777 -
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 -
Emergency Medicine Australasia : EMA Dec 2022The optimal approach for peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) insertion in adult hospitalised patients with difficult intravenous access (DIVA) is unknown. The present... (Review)
Review
Review article: Peripheral intravenous catheter insertion in adult patients with difficult intravenous access: A systematic review of assessment instruments, clinical practice guidelines and escalation pathways.
The optimal approach for peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) insertion in adult hospitalised patients with difficult intravenous access (DIVA) is unknown. The present study aimed to critically appraise the quality of (i) assessment instruments and (ii) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) or escalation pathways for identifying and managing patients with DIVA. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EBSCO MEDLINE, EMBASE (OVID) and EBSCO CINAHL databases were searched on 22 March 2021. Studies describing a DIVA assessment measure, CPG or escalation pathway for PIVC insertion in adults (≥18 years of age) were included. Data were extracted using a standardised data extraction form including study design, type of resource and reported clinical outcomes. Quality of DIVA assessment instruments were reviewed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments checklist. Methodological quality of CPGs and escalation pathways was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-II (AGREE-II) instrument. Overall, 24 DIVA resources comprising 16 DIVA assessment instruments and nine CPGs or escalation pathways (including one combined assessment instrument and escalation pathway) were identified. Instruments commonly focused on vein visibility and palpability as indicators of DIVA. CPGs and escalation pathways unanimously recommended use of vessel visualisation technology for patients with or suspected of DIVA. Methodological quality of the resources was mixed. Consensus and standardisation of resources to identify DIVA and recommendations for managing patients with DIVA is limited. Adopting consistent, evidence-based CPGs, escalation pathways or DIVA assessment instruments may significantly improve clinical outcomes.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Catheterization, Peripheral; Administration, Intravenous; Evidence-Based Practice; Checklist; Catheters
PubMed: 36038953
DOI: 10.1111/1742-6723.14069 -
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