Routine resite of peripheral intravenous devices every 3 days did not reduce complications compared with clinically indicated resite: a randomised controlled trial

Claire M Rickard, Damhnat McCann, Jane Munnings, Matthew R McGrail, Claire M Rickard, Damhnat McCann, Jane Munnings, Matthew R McGrail

Abstract

Background: Peripheral intravenous device (IVD) complications were traditionally thought to be reduced by limiting dwell time. Current recommendations are to resite IVDs by 96 hours with the exception of children and patients with poor veins. Recent evidence suggests routine resite is unnecessary, at least if devices are inserted by a specialised IV team. The aim of this study was to compare the impact of peripheral IVD 'routine resite' with 'removal on clinical indication' on IVD complications in a general hospital without an IV team.

Methods: A randomised, controlled trial was conducted in a regional teaching hospital. After ethics approval, 362 patients (603 IVDs) were randomised to have IVDs replaced on clinical indication (185 patients) or routine change every 3 days (177 patients). IVDs were inserted and managed by the general hospital medical and nursing staff; there was no IV team. The primary endpoint was a composite of IVD complications: phlebitis, infiltration, occlusion, accidental removal, local infection, and device-related bloodstream infection.

Results: IVD complication rates were 68 per 1,000 IVD days (clinically indicated) and 66 per 1,000 IVD days (routine replacement) (P = 0.86; HR 1.03; 95% CI, 0.74-1.43). Time to first complication per patient did not differ between groups (KM with log rank, P = 0.53). There were no local infections or IVD-related bloodstream infections in either group. IV therapy duration did not differ between groups (P = 0.22), but more (P = 0.004) IVDs were placed per patient in the routine replacement (mean, 1.8) than the clinical indication group (mean, 1.5), with significantly higher hospital costs per patient (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Resite on clinical indication would allow one in two patients to have a single cannula per course of IV treatment, as opposed to one in five patients managed with routine resite; overall complication rates appear similar. Clinically indicated resite would achieve savings in equipment, staff time and patient discomfort. There is growing evidence to support the extended use of peripheral IVDs with removal only on clinical indication.

Registration number: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) Number ACTRN12608000421336.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Participant flowchart.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Kaplan-Meier survival curve of time to first intravenous device complication per patient (log rank, P = 0.53).

References

    1. Mermel LA, Farr BM, Sherertz RJ, Raad II, O'Grady NP, Harris JS, Craven DE. Guidelines for the management of intravascular catheter-related infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;32(9):1249–1272. doi: 10.1086/320001.
    1. Maki DG, Kluger DM, Crnich CJ. The risk of bloodstream infection in adults with different intravascular devices: a systematic review of 200 published prospective studies. Mayo Clin Proc. 2006;81(9):1159–1171. doi: 10.4065/81.9.1159.
    1. Maki DG, Ringer M. Risk factors for infusion-related phlebitis with small peripheral venous catheters. Ann Intern Med. 1991;114(10):845–854.
    1. Lai KK. Safety of prolonging peripheral cannula and IV tubing use from 72 to 96 hours. Am J Infect Control. 1998;26(1):66–70. doi: 10.1016/S0196-6553(98)70063-X.
    1. Monreal M, Oller B, Rodriguez N, Vega J, Torres T, Valero P, Mach G, Ruiz AE, Roca J. Infusion phlebitis in post-operative patients: when and why. Haemostasis. 1999;29(5):247–254.
    1. Horvath R, Collignon P. Controlling intravascular catheter infections. Australian Prescriber. 2003;26:41–43.
    1. O'Grady NP, Alexander M, Dellinger EP, Gerberding JL, Heard SO, Maki DG, Masur H, McCormick RD, Mermel LA, Pearson ML, Raad II, Randolph A, Weinstein RA. Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Infect Control Hospital Epidemiol. 2002;23(12):759–769. doi: 10.1086/502007.
    1. Wright SB, Huskins C, Dokholyan RS, Goldmann DA, Platt R. Administrative databases provide inaccurate data for surveillance of long-term central venous catheter-associated infections. Infect Control Hospital Epidemiol. 2003;24(12):946–949. doi: 10.1086/502164.
    1. Collin J, Collin C. Infusion thrombophlebitis. Lancet. 1975;2(7932):458. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(75)90875-2.
    1. Band JD, Maki DG. Steel needles used for intravenous therapy: morbidity in patients with hematologic malignancy. Arch Intern Med. 1980;140:31–34. doi: 10.1001/archinte.140.1.31.
    1. Idvall E, Gunningberg L. Evidence for elective replacement of peripheral intravenous catheter to prevent thrombophlebitis: a systematic review. J Advanced Nurs. 2006;55(6):715–722. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03962.x.
    1. Kerin MJ, Pickford IR, Jaeger H, Couse NF, Mitchell CJ, Macfie J. A prospective and randomised study comparing the incidence of infusion phlebitis during continuous and cyclic peripheral parenteral nutrition. Clin Nutr. 1991;10:315–319. doi: 10.1016/0261-5614(91)90060-P.
    1. Barker P, Anderson AD, MacFie J. Randomised clinical trial of elective re-siting of intravenous cannulae. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2004;86:281–283. doi: 10.1308/147870804317.
    1. May J, Murchan P, MacFie J, Sedman P, Donat R, Palmer D, Mitchell CJ. Prospective study of the aetiology of infusion phlebitis and line failure during peripheral parenteral nutrition. Br J Surg. 1996;83:1091–1094. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800830817.
    1. Webster J, Clarke S, Paterson D, Hutton A, van Dyk S, Gale C, Hopkins T. Routine care of peripheral intravenous catheters versus clinically indicated replacement: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2008;337(a339)
    1. Webster J, Lloyd S, Hopkins T, Osborne S, Yaxley M. Developing a Research base for Intravenous Peripheral cannula re-sites (DRIP trial). A randomised controlled trial of hospital in-patients. Int J Nurs Stud. 2007;44(5):664–671. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.02.003.
    1. Van Donk P, Rickard CM, McGrail MR, Doolan G. Routine replacement versus clinical monitoring of peripheral intravenous catheters in a regional hospital in the home program: a randomized controlled trial. Infect Control Hospital Epidemiol. 2009;30(9):915–917. doi: 10.1086/599776.
    1. Webster J, Osborne S, Rickard C, Hall J. Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;17(3):CD007798.
    1. Maki DG. Improving the safety of peripheral intravenous catheters. BMJ. 2008;337:a630. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a630.
    1. Tager IB, Ginsberg MB, Ellis SE, Walsh NE, Dupont I, Simchen E, Faich GA. An epidemiologic study of the risks associated with peripheral intravenous catheters. Am J Epidemiol. 1983;118:839–851.
    1. Foster L, Wallis M, Peterson B, James H. A descriptive study of peripheral intravenous catheters in patients admitted to a paediatric unit in one Australian hospital. J Infus Nurs. 2002;25:150–167. doi: 10.1097/00129804-200205000-00003.
    1. Gaukroger PB, Roberts JG, Manners TA. Infusion thrombophlebitis: a prospective comparison of 645 Vialon and Teflon cannulae in anaesthetic and postoperative use. Anaesth Intensive Care. 1988;16(3):265–271.
    1. Campbell L. IV-related phlebitis, complications and length of hospital stay: 1. Br J Nurs. 1998;7(21):1304–1306. 1308-1312.
    1. Campbell L. IV-related phlebitis, complications and length of hospital stay: 2. Br J Nurs. 1998;7(22):1364–1366. 1372-1373.
    1. Khawaja HT, Campbell MJ, Weaver PC. Effect of transdermal glyceryl trinitrate on the survival of peripheral intravenous infusions: a double-blind prospective clinical study. Br J Surg. 1988;75:1212–1215. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800751223.
    1. Prentice RL, Williams BJ, Peterson AV. On the regression analysis of multivariate failure time data. Biometrika. 1981;68(2):373–379. doi: 10.1093/biomet/68.2.373.
    1. Thompson SG, Barber JA. How should cost data in pragmatic randomised trials be analysed? BMJ. 2000;320(7243):1197–1200. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7243.1197.
    1. Bregenzer T, Conen D, Sakmann P, Widmer AF. Is routine replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters necessary? Arch Intern Med. 1998;158(2):151–156. doi: 10.1001/archinte.158.2.151.
    1. Catney MR, Hillis S, Wakefield B, Simpson L, Domino L, Keller S, Connelly T, White M, Price D, Wagner K. Relationship between peripheral intravenous catheter dwell time and the development of phlebitis and infiltration. J Infus Nurs. 2001;24(5):332–341. doi: 10.1097/00129804-200109000-00008.
    1. White S. Peripheral intravenous therapy-related phlebitis rates in an adult population. J Intraven Nurs. 2001;24:19–24.
    1. Cornely OA, Bethe U, Pauls R, Waldschmidt D. Peripheral Teflon catheters: factors determining incidence of phlebitis and duration of cannulation. Infect Control Hospital Epidemiol. 2002;23(5):249–253. doi: 10.1086/502044.
    1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Health Services Series. Canberra: AIHW; 2008. Australian Hospital Statistics 2006-07.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa