Routine care of peripheral intravenous catheters versus clinically indicated replacement: randomised controlled trial

Joan Webster, Samantha Clarke, Dana Paterson, Anne Hutton, Stacey van Dyk, Catherine Gale, Tracey Hopkins, Joan Webster, Samantha Clarke, Dana Paterson, Anne Hutton, Stacey van Dyk, Catherine Gale, Tracey Hopkins

Abstract

Objective: To compare routine replacement of intravenous peripheral catheters with replacement only when clinically indicated.

Design: Randomised controlled trial.

Setting: Tertiary hospital in Australia.

Participants: 755 medical and surgical patients: 379 allocated to catheter replacement only when clinically indicated and 376 allocated to routine care of catheter (control group).

Main outcome measure: A composite measure of catheter failure resulting from phlebitis or infiltration.

Results: Catheters were removed because of phlebitis or infiltration from 123 of 376 (33%) patients in the control group compared with 143 of 379 (38%) patients in the intervention group; the difference was not significant (relative risk 1.15, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.40). When the analysis was based on failure per 1000 device days (number of failures divided by number of days catheterised, divided by 1000), no difference could be detected between the groups (relative risk 0.98, 0.78 to 1.24). Infusion related costs were higher in the control group (mean $A41.02; pound19.71; euro24.80; $38.55) than intervention group ($A36.40). The rate of phlebitis in both groups was low (4% in intervention group, 3% in control group).

Conclusion: Replacing peripheral intravenous catheters when clinically indicated has no effect on the incidence of failure, based on a composite measure of phlebitis or infiltration. Larger trials are needed to test this finding using phlebitis alone as a more clinically meaningful outcome.

Registration number: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12605000147684.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/2483870/bin/webj545038.f1.jpg
Flow of participants through trial

References

    1. Bregenzer T, Conen D, Sakmann P, Widmer AF. Is routine replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters necessary? Arch Intern Med 1998;158:151-6.
    1. Tripepi-Bova KA, Woods KD, Loach MC. A comparison of transparent polyurethane and dry gauze dressings for peripheral IV catheter sites: rates of phlebitis, infiltration, and dislodgment by patients. Am J Crit Care 1997;6:377-81.
    1. Chee S, Tan W. Reducing infusion phlebitis in Singapore hospitals using extended life end-line filters. J Infus Nurs 2002;25:95-104.
    1. Tager IB, Ginsberg MB, Ellis SE, Walsh NE, Dupont I, Simchen E, et al. An epidemiologic study of the risks associated with peripheral intravenous catheters. Am J Epidemiol 1983;118:839-51.
    1. Martinez JA, Fernandez P, Rodriguez E, Sobrino J, Torres M, Nubiola A, et al. Intravenous cannulae: complications arising from their use and analysis of their predisposing factors. Med Clin (Barc) 1994;103:89-93.
    1. Lipsky BA, Peugeot RL, Boyko EJ, Kent DL. A prospective study of Staphylococcus aureus nasal colonization and intravenous therapy-related phlebitis. Arch Intern Med 1992;152:2109-12.
    1. White SA. Peripheral intravenous therapy-related phlebitis rates in an adult population. J Intraven Nurs 2001;24:19-24.
    1. Shimandle RB, Johnson D, Baker M, Stotland N, Karrison T, Arnow PM. Safety of peripheral intravenous catheters in children. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:736-40.
    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;81:1159-71.
    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;16:265-71.
    1. Cornely OA, Bethe U, Pauls R, Waldschmidt D. Peripheral Teflon catheters: factors determining incidence of phlebitis and duration of cannulation. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002;23:249-53.
    1. Callaghan S, Copnell B, Johnston L. Comparison of two methods of peripheral intravenous cannula securement in the pediatric setting. J Infus Nurs 2002;25:256-64.
    1. Wood D. A comparative study of two securement techniques for short peripheral intravenous catheters. J Intraven Nurs 1997;20:280-5.
    1. Shah PS, Ng E, Sinha AK. Heparin for prolonging peripheral intravenous catheter use in neonates. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005:CD002774.
    1. O’Grady NP, Alexander M, Dellinger EP, Gerberding JL, Heard SO, Maki DG, et al. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002;23:759-69.
    1. Lai KK. Safety of prolonging peripheral cannula and iv tubing use from 72 hours to 96 hours. Am J Infect Control 1998;26:66-70.
    1. Homer LD, Holmes KR. Risks associated with 72- and 96-hour peripheral intravenous catheter dwell times. J Intraven Nurs 1998;21:301-5.
    1. Catney MR, Hillis S, Wakefield B, Simpson L, Domino L, Keller S, et al. Relationship between peripheral intravenous catheter dwell time and the development of phlebitis and infiltration. J Infus Nurs 2001;24:332-41.
    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;10:315-9.
    1. May J, Murchan P, MacFie J, Sedman P, Donat R, Palmer D, et al. Prospective study of the aetiology of infusion phlebitis and line failure during peripheral parenteral nutrition. Br J Surg 1996;83:1091-4.
    1. Barker P, Anderson AD, MacFie J. Randomised clinical trial of re-siting of intravenous cannulae. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2004;86:281-3.
    1. Idvall E, Gunningberg L. Evidence for elective replacement of peripheral intravenous catheter to prevent thrombophlebitis: a systematic review. J Adv Nurs 2006;55:715-22.
    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;44:664-71.
    1. Maki DG, Ringer M. Risk factors for infusion-related phlebitis with small peripheral venous catheters. A randomized controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1991;114:845-54.
    1. Monreal M, Oller B, Rodriguez N, Vega J, Torres T, Valero P, et al. Infusion phlebitis in post-operative patients: when and why. Haemostasis 1999;29:247-54.
    1. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 2001;134:657-62.
    1. Wright A, Hecker J. Infusion failure caused by phlebitis and extravasation. Clin Pharm 1991;10:630-4.
    1. Garland JS, Dunne WM Jr, Havens P, Hintermeyer M, Bozzette MA, Wincek J, et al. Peripheral intravenous catheter complications in critically ill children: a prospective study. Pediatrics 1992;89:1145-50.
    1. Malach T, Jerassy Z, Rudensky B, Schlesinger Y, Broide E, Olsha O, et al. Prospective surveillance of phlebitis associated with peripheral intravenous catheters. Am J Infect Control 2006;34:308-12.
    1. Nassaji-Zavareh M, Ghorbani R. Peripheral intravenous catheter-related phlebitis and related risk factors. Singapore Med J 2007;48:733-6.
    1. Uchida KM, Iteen SA, Wong NT. Identifying costs of intravenous solution wastage. Pharmacoeconomics 1994;6:240-8.
    1. Anon. Hospital drug costs rise. Hospital Pharmacist 2007;14:322

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren