-
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
Drugs in R&D Mar 2021Intravenous drug administration is associated with potential complications, such as phlebitis. The physiochemical characteristics of the infusate play a very important...
BACKGROUND
Intravenous drug administration is associated with potential complications, such as phlebitis. The physiochemical characteristics of the infusate play a very important role in some of these problems.
AIM
The aim of this study was to standardize the dilutions of intravenous drugs most commonly used in hospitalized adult patients and to characterize their pH, osmolarity and cytotoxic nature to better guide the selection of the most appropriate vascular access.
METHODS
The project was conducted in three phases: (i) standardization of intravenous therapy, which was conducted using a modified double-round Delphi method; (ii) characterization of the dilutions agreed on in the previous phase by means of determining the osmolarity and pH of each of the agreed concentrations, and recording the vesicant nature based on the information in literature; and (iii) algorithm proposal for selecting the most appropriate vascular access, taking into account the information gathered in the previous phases.
RESULTS
In total, 112 drugs were standardized and 307 different admixtures were assessed for pH, osmolarity and vesicant nature. Of these, 123 admixtures (40%), had osmolarity values >600 mOsm/L, pH < 4 or > 9, or were classified as vesicants. In these cases, selection of the most suitable route of infusion and vascular access device is crucial to minimize the risk of phlebitis-type complications.
CONCLUSIONS
Increasing safety of intravenous therapy should be a priority in the healthcare settings. Knowing the characteristics of drugs to assess the risk involved in their administration related to their physicochemical nature may be useful to guide decision making regarding the most appropriate vascular access and devices.
Topics: Adult; Algorithms; Delphi Technique; Humans; Hydrogen-Ion Concentration; Infusions, Intravenous; Inpatients; Irritants; Osmolar Concentration; Phlebitis; Spain; Vascular Access Devices
PubMed: 33346878
DOI: 10.1007/s40268-020-00329-w -
Lancet (London, England) Sep 2012The millions of peripheral intravenous catheters used each year are recommended for 72-96 h replacement in adults. This routine replacement increases health-care costs... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
The millions of peripheral intravenous catheters used each year are recommended for 72-96 h replacement in adults. This routine replacement increases health-care costs and staff workload and requires patients to undergo repeated invasive procedures. The effectiveness of the practice is not well established. Our hypothesis was that clinically indicated catheter replacement is of equal benefit to routine replacement.
METHODS
This multicentre, randomised, non-blinded equivalence trial recruited adults (≥18 years) with an intravenous catheter of expected use longer than 4 days from three hospitals in Queensland, Australia, between May 20, 2008, and Sept 9, 2009. Computer-generated random assignment (1:1 ratio, no blocking, stratified by hospital, concealed before allocation) was to clinically indicated replacement, or third daily routine replacement. Patients, clinical staff, and research nurses could not be masked after treatment allocation because of the nature of the intervention. The primary outcome was phlebitis during catheterisation or within 48 h after removal. The equivalence margin was set at 3%. Primary analysis was by intention to treat. Secondary endpoints were catheter-related bloodstream and local infections, all bloodstream infections, catheter tip colonisation, infusion failure, catheter numbers used, therapy duration, mortality, and costs. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12608000445370.
FINDINGS
All 3283 patients randomised (5907 catheters) were included in our analysis (1593 clinically indicated; 1690 routine replacement). Mean dwell time for catheters in situ on day 3 was 99 h (SD 54) when replaced as clinically indicated and 70 h (13) when routinely replaced. Phlebitis occurred in 114 of 1593 (7%) patients in the clinically indicated group and in 114 of 1690 (7%) patients in the routine replacement group, an absolute risk difference of 0·41% (95% CI -1·33 to 2·15%), which was within the prespecified 3% equivalence margin. No serious adverse events related to study interventions occurred.
INTERPRETATION
Peripheral intravenous catheters can be removed as clinically indicated; this policy will avoid millions of catheter insertions, associated discomfort, and substantial costs in both equipment and staff workload. Ongoing close monitoring should continue with timely treatment cessation and prompt removal for complications.
FUNDING
Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Catheter-Related Infections; Catheterization, Peripheral; Device Removal; Equipment Contamination; Female; Health Care Costs; Humans; Kaplan-Meier Estimate; Male; Middle Aged; Phlebitis; Queensland; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 22998716
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61082-4 -
Journal of Vascular Surgery. Venous and... Jul 2020
Topics: Cyanoacrylates; Humans; Phlebitis; Saphenous Vein
PubMed: 32553656
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2020.02.009 -
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine Apr 2020
Topics: Aged; Humans; Leg; Male; Thrombophlebitis
PubMed: 32238373
DOI: 10.3949/ccjm.87a.19086