The effect of cannula material on the incidence of peripheral venous thrombophlebitis

Peripheral intravenous catheter infection and failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

Intravenous access placement and fluid administration appropriateness in the emergency department

The aim of this study is to assess practice and effectiveness of Peripheral Venous Catheter (PVC) insertion and intravenous fluid administration in the Emergency Department (ED). A prospective study was conducted at a single primary ED in Brescia, Italy. 455 participants were included in the analysis. PVC were placed in 88 % of patients, 18 gauge catheters were the most frequently used (63%). In 360 patients PVC placement required one attempt. In 99 % of patients PVCs were used at least once. Fluid administration was considered appropriate in 23 patients. Out of 402 PVC placements, 244 were not necessary (in 225 patients PVCs were used only for blood samples withdrawal, and in 16 patients they were used for blood samples withdrawal, and inappropriate fluid administration). We concluded that a large number of PVC placements in the ED was potentially avoidable, and, when PVCs were used for IV fluid administration, the indication was often inappropriate. Physicians should carefully assess the real need of PVC placement in patients admitted to the ED and critically assess some issues of everyday practice, like PVC placement or IV fluids prescription, with evaluation of cost savings.

Experimental models of glaucoma filtration surgery

Glaucoma filtration surgery plays an important role in achieving intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction in patients who have high IOP despite maximum medical therapy. Preclinical experimental models of glaucoma filtration surgery contribute a great deal to our knowledge of the wound healing processes that predispose to scarring and may lead to poor outcomes. However, this research needs to be interpreted in the light of the specific study design, animal model and methods used. We review the existing literature addressing various models of experimental glaucoma filtration surgery, discuss the considerations in assessing these models and describe future steps in evaluating potential therapeutics and bleb characteristics that could impact translational research in this field.

Needlestick injuries: the role of safety-engineered devices in prevention

The first documented mention of a needlestick injury (NSI) in the medical literature appeared in 1906. Despite growth in academic and clinical interest for NSI prevention, a global report identified that approximately 3 million healthcare workers have suffered percutaneous exposure to blood-borne pathogens. Legislation is an important component of NSI prevention. Unfortunately, the impact of legislation may not always reduce the incidence of NSI as much as expected. Safety-engineered device (SED) implementation has demonstrated a substantial reduction in NSI rates compared with non-SEDs. More importantly, passive SEDs are 10 times less likely to be connected with an NSI incident.

Effectiveness of vialon biomaterial versus teflon catheters for peripheral intravenous placement: A randomized clinical trial

AIM

This study was to determine the effects of the two types of catheter material (vialon biomaterial and teflon) on pain intensity, dwell time, and phlebitis score for peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) placement.

METHODS

Participants (N = 208) were randomly assigned to the vialon biomaterial group (n = 104), the teflon group (n = 104). After the PIVC placement, the intensity of pain and phlebitis score were evaluated. Catheter dwell mean time was determined.

RESULTS

The pain intensity scores were similar immediately after inserting the PIVC. No difference was observed between the pain scores in both groups (p ≥ .050). Catheter dwell mean time for the vialon biomaterial catheter group (4.72 ± 1.20 days) was significantly longer compared to the teflon catheter group (4.10 ± 0.92 days) (p ≤ .001). It was determined that the catheter was removed due to phlebitis development in 16.3% of the vialon biomaterial catheter group and 53.8% of the teflon catheter group. An advanced level of statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of phlebitis development scores (p ≤ .001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study concluded that vialon biomaterial catheter (BD Insyte™ Autoguard™ BC winged) demonstrates longer dwell time of PIVC, lower phlebitis rate and phlebitis score than teflon catheter (BD Venflon™).

The incidence and risk of infusion phlebitis with peripheral intravenous catheters: A meta-analysis

Introduction:

Phlebitis is a common complication associated with the use of peripheral intravenous catheters. The aim of this study was to estimate the incidence of phlebitis with peripheral intravenous catheter use and to identify risk factors for phlebitis development.

Method:

Literature survey was conducted in electronic databases (CINAHL, Embase, Google Scholar, Ovid, and PubMed), and studies were included if they used peripheral intravenous catheter for therapeutic or volumetric infusion and reported phlebitis incidence rates. Random effects meta-analyses were performed to obtain overall and subgroup phlebitis incidence rates and odds ratio between males and females in phlebitis incidence.

Results:

Thirty-five studies were included (20,697 catheters used for 15,791 patients; age 57.1 years (95% confidence interval: 55.0, 59.2); 53.9% males (95% confidence interval: 42.3, 65.5)). Incidence of phlebitis was 30.7 per 100 catheters (95% confidence interval: 27.2, 34.2). Incidence of severe phlebitis was 3.6% (95% confidence interval: 2.7%, 4.6%). Incidence of phlebitis was higher in non-intervened (30% (95% confidence interval: 27%, 33%)) than in intervened (21% (95% confidence interval: 15%, 27%)) groups, and with Teflon (33% (95% confidence interval: 25%, 41%)) than Vialon (27% (95% confidence interval: 21%, 32%)) cannula use. Odds of developing phlebitis was significantly higher in females (odds ratio = 1.42 (95% confidence interval: 1.05, 1.93); p = 0.02). Longer dwelling time, antibiotics infusion, female gender, forearm insertion, infectious disease, and Teflon catheter are important risk factors for phlebitis development identified by the included studies.

Conclusion:

Incidence of phlebitis with the use of peripheral intravenous catheters during infusion is 31%. Severe phlebitis develops in 4% of all patients. Risk of phlebitis development can be reduced by adapting appropriate interventions.

Catheter dwell time and risk of catheter failure in adult patients with peripheral venous catheters

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To explore whether the risk of peripheral venous catheters failure remained constant throughout catheter use in adult patients.

BACKGROUND

Peripheral venous catheters, widely used in adult patients, may have a critical threshold dwell time associated with increased risk of catheter failure.

DESIGN

Prospective, observational study. We have complied with the STROBE checklist of items.

METHODS

This study was conducted from July-October 2018 in Hunan, China. Data on patient factors, catheter factors and catheter failure events were collected. Poisson regression was used to assess the effect of catheter dwell time on catheter failure while adjusting for other variables.

RESULTS

A total of 1,477 patients were included in the analysis. There were 854 cases (57.8%) of catheter failure. The median dwell time to catheter failure was 52 hr (interquartile range: 36-73 hr). The incidence rate of catheter failure significantly increased by 1.1%/h in the first 38 hr after catheter insertion. From 39-149 hr, the incidence rate significantly decreased, and at >149 hr, there was no significant change in the incidence rate. Meanwhile, factors such as vascular quality and infused drugs showed having an impact on catheter failure events.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of catheter failure may not remain constant throughout the dwell time. The results suggest that nurses should assess the insertion site frequently in the first 38 hr.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The significant increase in the risk of catheter failure per hour may warrant close and frequent inspection of insertion site during the first 38 hr.

Risk factors for a difficult intravenous access: A multicentre study comparing nurses' beliefs to evidence

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence about patient-related risk factors for difficult intravenous access in adults, and at identifying nurses' beliefs and their consistency with evidence.

BACKGROUND

Peripheral intravenous cannulation is a common procedure for nurses, but rates of failure at first attempt of peripheral intravenous cannulation range 10%-40%. Nurses' beliefs about difficult intravenous access factors might influence their clinical practice more than current evidence.

DESIGN

The study included a literature review of the evidence on patient-related risk factors for difficult intravenous access, the development of an instrument to investigate nurses' beliefs about this topic and a cross-sectional multicentre survey on clinical nurses.

METHODS

The quality of the studies included was evaluated through the Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. A synthesis of evidence for each risk factor was produced. A survey instrument was developed including 26 risk factors, which were then rated by nurses as perceived predictors of difficult intravenous access. The STROBE guidelines for study reporting were followed.

RESULTS

Four hundred and fifty clinical nurses working in four hospitals in Italy were surveyed. Nurses' beliefs were in line with evidence in considering body mass index, drug abuse, lymphadenectomy and chemotherapy as difficult intravenous access factors. Beliefs about difficult intravenous access factors were influenced by nurses' work experience and frequency of peripheral intravenous cannulation. Nurses also identified as risk factors for difficult intravenous access oedema, thrombophlebitis, hypovolaemia, skin lesions and irritant therapies, which have been minimally investigated by research.

CONCLUSIONS

An overall congruence between nurses' beliefs and evidence about risk factors for difficult intravenous access was found. With their expertise, nurses may fill the knowledge gap of clinical evidence and open new paths for clinically meaningful research.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Nurses' beliefs about difficult intravenous access factors can be influenced by their work experience and clinical setting. Integrating nurses' beliefs with scientific evidence can increase the quality of care.

Medication errors involving intravenous patient-controlled analgesia: results from the 2005-2015 MEDMARX database

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine the current magnitude and characteristics of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) errors, and to identify opportunities for improving the PCA modality.

METHODS

We conducted a descriptive analysis of IV-PCA medication errors submitted to the MEDMARX database. Events were restricted to those occurring in inpatient hospital settings between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2015. IV-PCA errors were classified by error category, cause of error, error type, level of care rendered, and actions taken.

RESULTS

A total of 1948 IV-PCA errors were identified as potential errors (3.9%), nonharmful errors (89.5%), or harmful errors (6.7%) based on the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention taxonomy for categorizing medication errors. Of these, 19.1% required a clinical intervention to address the deleterious effects of the error, indicating an underestimation of the risks associated with IV-PCA errors. The most frequent types of errors were improper dose/quantity (43.2%) and omission errors (19.9%). While human performance deficit was the leading cause of error (50.2%), other common causes included failure to follow procedure and protocol (42.2%) and improper use of the pump (22.7%). Although remedial actions were often taken to prevent error recurrence, actions were taken to rectify the systemic deficits that led to errors in only a minority of cases (11.8%).

CONCLUSION

Preventable errors continue to pose unnecessary risks to patients receiving IV-PCA. Multimodal analgesic regimens and novel PCA systems that reduce human error are needed to prevent errors while preserving the advantages of PCA for the management of acute pain.

Clinical use of closed-system safety peripheral intravenous cannulas

Peripheral intravenous (IV) cannulas are the quickest and most effective way of gaining venous vascular access and administering IV therapy. Closed-system peripheral IV cannulas have been shown to be safe and more reliable than open, non-valved peripheral cannulas in clinical practice. This article introduces the Smiths Medical DeltaVen closed-system peripheral IV cannula and includes three case studies describing its use in clinical practice and associated patient outcomes.

Low-Angled Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Tip Placement Decreases Phlebitis

Introduction

Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are frequently removed due to phlebitis. We hypothesized that catheters made of polyurethane, which is more flexible than Teflon, would decrease phlebitis, and that flexibility could be estimated by measuring the catheter-tip angle. Ultrasonography in two groups of patients with different catheter types was then used to compare catheter-tip angles and phlebitis.

Methods

Observational studies were carried out at a medical ward in a university hospital. Infusion therapy was administered to one group of patients in 2014 using Teflon catheters (control group, n = 200), and to another group of patients in 2015 using polyurethane catheters (investigational group, n = 207). The symptoms were assessed according to a scale developed by the Infusion Nurses Society. Long-axis ultrasonography images taken immediately before catheter removal were used to measure the angle between the central line of the catheter within 2 mm from the distal point and a tangent to the vessel wall.

Results

There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to sex, age, and medical diagnosis. In the control and investigational groups, the rates of phlebitis were 37% (73/200) and 17% (36/207), respectively (p<0.001). The median angles of the catheter tip were 7.8° and 4.1°, respectively (p<0.001). Phlebitis occurred more frequently when the catheter-tip was placed at angle >5.8°.

Discussion

The frequency of phlebitis was lower in the polyurethane, in which the catheter was placed at lower angle, almost parallel to the vessel. Our results will aid in developing new catheters and in improving PIVC-securement techniques.

Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters

BACKGROUND

US Centers for Disease Control guidelines recommend replacement of peripheral intravenous (IV) catheters 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. Costs associated with routine replacement may be considerable. This is an update of a review first published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of removing peripheral IV catheters when clinically indicated compared with removing and re-siting the catheter routinely.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update the Cochrane Vascular Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register (March 2015) and CENTRAL (2015, Issue 3). We also searched clinical trials registries (April 2015).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials that compared routine removal of peripheral IV catheters with removal only when clinically indicated in hospitalised or community dwelling patients receiving continuous or intermittent infusions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven trials with a total of 4895 patients were included in the review. The quality of the evidence was high for most outcomes but was downgraded to moderate for the outcome catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI). The downgrade was due to wide confidence intervals, which created a high level of uncertainty around the effect estimate. CRBSI was assessed in five trials (4806 patients). There was no significant between group difference in the CRBSI rate (clinically-indicated 1/2365; routine change 2/2441). The risk ratio (RR) was 0.61 (95% CI 0.08 to 4.68; P = 0.64). No difference in phlebitis rates was found whether catheters were changed according to clinical indications or routinely (clinically-indicated 186/2365; 3-day change 166/2441; RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.39). This result was unaffected by whether infusion through the catheter was continuous or intermittent. We also analysed the data by number of device days and again no differences between groups were observed (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.27; P = 0.75). One trial assessed all-cause bloodstream infection. There was no difference in this outcome between the two groups (clinically-indicated 4/1593 (0.02%); routine change 9/1690 (0.05%); P = 0.21). Cannulation costs were lower by approximately AUD 7.00 in the clinically-indicated group (mean difference (MD) -6.96, 95% CI -9.05 to -4.86; P ≤ 0.00001).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review found no evidence to support changing catheters every 72 to 96 hours. Consequently, healthcare organisations may consider changing to a policy whereby catheters are changed only if clinically indicated. This would provide significant cost savings and would spare patients the unnecessary pain of routine re-sites in the absence of clinical indications. To minimise peripheral catheter-related complications, the insertion site should be inspected at each shift change and the catheter removed if signs of inflammation, infiltration, or blockage are present.

Modelling catheter-vein biomechanical interactions during an intravenous procedure

A reliable intravenous (IV) access into the upper extremity veins requires the insertion of a temporary short peripheral catheter (SPC). This so common procedure is, however, associated with a risk of developing short peripheral catheter thrombophlebitis (SPCT) which causes distress and potentially prolongs patient hospitalization. We have developed and studied a biomechanical SPC-vein computational model during an IV procedure, and explored the biomechanical effects of repeated IV episodes on onset and reoccurrences of SPCT. The model was used to determine the effects of different insertion techniques as well as inter-patient biological variability on the catheter-vein wall contact pressures and wall deformations. We found that the maximal pressure exerted upon the vein wall was inhomogeneously distributed, and that the bending region was exposed to significantly greater pressures and deformations. The maximal exerted contact pressure on the inner vein's wall was 2938 Pa. The maximal extent of the SPC penetration into the vein wall reached 3.6 μm, which corresponds to approximately 100% of the average height of the inner layer, suggesting local squashing of endothelial cells at the contact site. The modelling describes a potential biomechanical damage pathway that can explain the reoccurrence of SPCT.

Infusion phlebitis assessment measures: a systematic review

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Phlebitis is a common and painful complication of peripheral intravenous cannulation. The aim of this review was to identify the measures used in infusion phlebitis assessment and evaluate evidence regarding their reliability, validity, responsiveness and feasibility.

METHOD

We conducted a systematic literature review of the Cochrane library, Ovid MEDLINE and EBSCO CINAHL until September 2013. All English-language studies (randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort and cross-sectional) that used an infusion phlebitis scale were retrieved and analysed to determine which symptoms were included in each scale and how these were measured. We evaluated studies that reported testing the psychometric properties of phlebitis assessment scales using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines.

RESULTS

Infusion phlebitis was the primary outcome measure in 233 studies. Fifty-three (23%) of these provided no actual definition of phlebitis. Of the 180 studies that reported measuring phlebitis incidence and/or severity, 101 (56%) used a scale and 79 (44%) used a definition alone. We identified 71 different phlebitis assessment scales. Three scales had undergone some psychometric analyses, but no scale had been rigorously tested.

CONCLUSION

Many phlebitis scales exist, but none has been thoroughly validated for use in clinical practice. A lack of consensus on phlebitis measures has likely contributed to disparities in reported phlebitis incidence, precluding meaningful comparison of phlebitis rates.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of clinically indicated versus routine replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters

BACKGROUND

Millions of peripheral intravenous catheters are used worldwide. The current guidelines recommend routine catheter replacement every 72-96 h. This practice requires increasing healthcare resource use. The clinically indicated catheter replacement strategy is proposed as an alternative.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the cost effectiveness of clinically indicated versus routine replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of Queensland Health, Australia, was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial. Adult patients with an intravenous catheter of expected use for longer than 4 days were randomly assigned to receive either clinically indicated replacement or third-day routine replacement. The primary outcome was phlebitis during catheterization or within 48 h after catheter removal. Resource use data were prospectively collected and valued (2010 prices). The incremental net monetary benefit was calculated with uncertainty characterized using bootstrap simulations. Additionally, value of information (VOI) and value of implementation analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The clinically indicated replacement strategy was associated with a cost saving per patient of AU$7.60 (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.96-10.62) and a non-significant difference in the phlebitis rate of 0.41% (95% CI -1.33 to 2.15). The incremental net monetary benefit was AU$7.60 (95% CI 4.96-10.62). The expected VOI was zero, whereas the expected value of perfect implementation of the clinically indicated replacement strategy was approximately AU$5 million over 5 years.

CONCLUSION

The clinically indicated catheter replacement strategy is cost saving compared with routine replacement. It is recommended that healthcare organizations consider changing to a policy whereby catheters are changed only if clinically indicated.

Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters

BACKGROUND

US Centers for Disease Control guidelines recommend replacement of peripheral intravenous (IV) catheters 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. Costs associated with routine replacement may be considerable. This is an update of a review first published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of removing peripheral IV catheters when clinically indicated compared with removing and re-siting the catheter routinely.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases (PVD) Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the PVD Specialised Register (December 2012) and CENTRAL (2012, Issue 11). We also searched MEDLINE (last searched October 2012) and clinical trials registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials that compared routine removal of peripheral IV catheters with removal only when clinically indicated in hospitalised or community dwelling patients receiving continuous or intermittent infusions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven trials with a total of 4895 patients were included in the review. Catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) was assessed in five trials (4806 patients). There was no significant between group difference in the CRBSI rate (clinically-indicated 1/2365; routine change 2/2441). The risk ratio (RR) was 0.61 but the confidence interval (CI) was wide, creating uncertainty around the estimate (95% CI 0.08 to 4.68; P = 0.64). No difference in phlebitis rates was found whether catheters were changed according to clinical indications or routinely (clinically-indicated 186/2365; 3-day change 166/2441; RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.39). This result was unaffected by whether infusion through the catheter was continuous or intermittent. We also analysed the data by number of device days and again no differences between groups were observed (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.27; P = 0.75). One trial assessed all-cause bloodstream infection. There was no difference in this outcome between the two groups (clinically-indicated 4/1593 (0.02%); routine change 9/1690 (0.05%); P = 0.21). Cannulation costs were lower by approximately AUD 7.00 in the clinically-indicated group (mean difference (MD) -6.96, 95% CI -9.05 to -4.86; P ≤ 0.00001).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review found no evidence to support changing catheters every 72 to 96 hours. Consequently, healthcare organisations may consider changing to a policy whereby catheters are changed only if clinically indicated. This would provide significant cost savings and would spare patients the unnecessary pain of routine re-sites in the absence of clinical indications. To minimise peripheral catheter-related complications, the insertion site should be inspected at each shift change and the catheter removed if signs of inflammation, infiltration, or blockage are present.

Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters

BACKGROUND

Centers for Disease Control Guidelines recommend replacement of peripheral intravenous (IV) catheters every 72 to 96 hours. Routine replacement is thought to reduce the risk of phlebitis and bacteraemia. 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. Costs associated with routine replacement may be considerable.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of removing peripheral IV catheters when clinically indicated compared with removing and re-siting the catheter routinely.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group searched their Specialised Register (last searched October 2009) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (last searched Issue Issue 4, 2009). We also searched MEDLINE (last searched October 2009).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials that compared routine removal of peripheral IV catheters 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 assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

In five trials (3408 participants) there was a 44% reduction in suspected catheter-related bacteraemia in the clinically-indicated group (0.2 versus 0.4%) but this was not statistically significant (odds ratio (OR) 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.94; P = 0.37). Phlebitis was assessed in six trials (3455 patients); there was a non-significant increase in phlebitis in the clinically-indicated group (9% versus 7.2%); the OR was 1.24 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.60; P = 0.09). We also measured phlebitis per 1000 device days using data from five trials, (8779 device days). No statistical differences in the incidence of phlebitis per 1,000 device days was found (clinically indicated 1.6 cases per 1,000 catheter days versus 1.5 cases per 1,000 catheter days in the routine-replacement group).The combined OR was 1.04 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.32; P = 0.77). Cost was measured in two trials (961 patients). Cannulation costs were significantly reduced in the clinically-indicated group (mean difference (MD) -6.21; 95% CI -9.32 to -3.11; P = < 0.000).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review found no conclusive evidence of benefit in changing catheters every 72 to 96 hours. Consequently, health care organisations may consider changing to a policy whereby catheters are changed only if clinically indicated. This would provide significant cost savings and would also be welcomed by patients, who would be spared the unnecessary pain of routine re-sites in the absence of clinical indications.