Infusion phlebitis in patients with acute pneumonia: a prospective study

Effect of indwelling depth of peripheral intravenous catheters on thrombophlebitis

To clarify the effect of catheter indwelling depth on the occurrence of thrombophlebitis, a total of 339 hospitalized patients were randomly enrolled and divided by the catheter indwelling depth into 2 groups. Then the effect of indwelling depth on thrombophlebitis was analyzed, and the independent influence factors on the occurrence of thrombophlebitis were clarified. There were 49 cases of thrombophlebitis, including 8 tumor-bearing patients and 41 patients with lung infection. Thirteen of the 135 patients with indwelling depth of 1 cm, and 36 of the 204 patients with indwelling depth of 1.9 cm suffered thrombophlebitis. The relationship between incidence rate of thrombophlebitis and clinicopathological parameters was analyzed. It was found the incidence of thrombophlebitis was significantly correlated with males (X2 = 5.77), lung infection (X2 = 7.79), and indwelling depth of 1.9 cm (X2 = 4.223). Multifactor analysis of variance showed the significant independent risk factors of thrombophlebitis were male [hazard ratio (HR) 3.12 (1.39-6.98)], and lung infection (HR 0.22 [0.06-0.69]), and the indwelling depth of 1.9 cm affected the occurrence of thrombophlebitis (HR 0.79 [0.42 -3.09]) but was not an independent risk factor. In our treatment center, while appropriate fixation was ensured, the catheter indwelling depth shall be as short as possible, so as to reduce the occurrence of thrombophlebitis. For patients with lung infection, nursing at the intubation site shall be strengthened, so as to decrease thrombophlebitis.

WoCoVA consensus on the clinical use of in-line filtration during intravenous infusions: Current evidence and recommendations for future research

The need for filtering intravenous infusions has long been recognized in the field of venous access, though hard scientific evidence about the actual indications for in-line filters has been scarce. In the last few years, several papers and a few clinical studies have raised again this issue, suggesting that the time has come for a proper definition of the type of filtration, of its potential benefit, and of its proper indications in clinical practice. The WoCoVA Foundation, whose goal is to increase the global awareness on the risk of intravenous access and on patients' safety, developed the project of a consensus on intravenous filtration. A panel of experts in different aspects of intravenous infusion was chosen to express the current state of knowledge about filtration and to indicate the direction of future research in this field. The present document reports the final conclusions of the panel.

Peripheral Vein Thrombophlebitis in the Upper Extremity: A Systematic Review of a Frequent and Important Problem

BACKGROUND

The acceptable incidence of thrombophlebitis following intravenous cannulation is 5%, as recommended by the Intravenous Nurses Society guidelines, but publications have reported startling figures of 20% to 80%. Given the frequency of intravenous lines, this presents a potential clinical problem. We aimed to determine the predisposing patient, catheter, and health care-related factors of peripheral vein thrombophlebitis in the upper extremity.

METHODS

In this systematic review, we used a comprehensive search strategy to identify risk factors of thrombophlebitis from inception to May 20, 2019. Studies reporting risk factors of peripheral vein thrombophlebitis of adult patients admitted to the hospital and receiving an intravenous cannulation were included. The Quality of Prognostic Studies tool was used in the assessment for risk of bias to determine the study quality.

RESULTS

Of the 6910 studies initially identified, 25 were eligible for inclusion. Qualitative syntheses revealed that patient-related factors that confer a higher risk included intercurrent illness, immunocompromised state, comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus, malignancy, previous thrombophlebitis, burns, and higher hemoglobin levels. Catheter-related risk factors included catheter size, duration, and site of insertion. Intravenous antibiotics and potassium chloride predisposed to thrombophlebitis. Cannulation by an intravenous therapy team and more nursing care were associated with a decreased risk. A P-value < .5 was considered to be statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Recognition of the predisposing factors would allow for targeted strategies to aid in the prevention of this iatrogenic infection, which may include closer monitoring of patients who are identified to be vulnerable. Based on this systematic review, we developed an algorithm to guide clinical management. Further research is warranted to validate this algorithm.

Preventing peripheral intravenous catheter failure by reducing mechanical irritation

Peripheral intravenous catheter failure is a significant concern in the clinical setting. We investigated the effectiveness of care protocols, including an ultrasonographic “pre-scan” for selecting a large-diameter vein before catheterization, a “post-scan” for confirming the catheter tip position after catheterization with ultrasonography, and the use of a flexible polyurethane catheter to reduce the mechanical irritation that contributes to the incidence of catheter failure. This intervention study was a non-randomized controlled trial to investigate the effectiveness of the abovementioned care protocols, the effects of which were compared to the outcomes in the control group, which received conventional care. For both groups, participants were selected from patients in two wards at the University of Tokyo in Japan between July and November 2017. Inverse probability score-based weighted methods (IPW) using propensity score were used to estimate the effectiveness of care protocols. The primary outcome was catheter failure, which was defined as accidental and unplanned catheter removal. We used Kaplan-Meier survival curves to compare rates of time until catheter failure. We analysed 189 and 233 catheters in the intervention and control groups, respectively. In the control group, 68 catheters (29.2%) were determined to have failed, whereas, in the intervention group, only 21 catheters (11.1%) failed. There was a significant difference between each group regarding the ratio of catheter failure adjusted according to IPW (p = 0.003). The relative risk reduction of the intervention for catheter failure was 0.60 (95% CI: 0.47–0.71). Care protocols, including assessment of vein diameter, vein depth, and catheter tip location using ultrasound examination for reducing mechanical irritation is a promising method to reduce catheter failure incidence.

Study on incidence of phlebitis following the use of pherpheral intravenous catheter

Context:

Peripheral vein cannulation is commonly performed for rapid and accurate administration of medications. Phlebitis is one of the commonest complications that develop after intravenous catheter application.

Aims:

This study aims to investigate the incidence of phlebitis and to evaluate factors contributing to the development of phlebitis.

Settings and Design:

This was a prospective observational study conducted on patients admitted at 4 Air Force Hospital Kalaikunda.

Methods:

Study conducted on 150 patients who were admitted to the medical and surgical division of the hospital during the period from July 2018 to April 2019. The factors studied were age, gender, site of insertion, place of insertion, cannula size, IV medications, and blood products used. Phlebitis was graded using Visual Infusion Phlebitis Score.

Statistical Analysis Used:

The incidence of phlebitis was expressed in percentage and odds ratio was calculated to estimate the effects of suspected risk factors.

Results:

Incidence of phlebitis was found to be 31.4% from our study. The increased incidence rate of phlebitis was seen in the female gender, age less than 60 years, insertion in the lower limb, large catheter size, catheters inserted in emergency situations, and IV drugs administration.

Conclusion:

Phlebitis is an important on-going problem in present-day clinical practice. Avoiding of preventable risk factors, proper nursing care, and daily inspection of catheters needed for prevention of phlebitis.

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.

Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters

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.

Intermittently delivered IV medication and pH: reevaluating the evidence

The Infusion Nurses Society's Infusion Nursing Standards of Practice has treated pH as a critical factor in the decision-making process for vascular access device selection, stating that an infusate with a pH less than 5 or greater than 9 is not appropriate for short peripheral or midline catheters. Because of the Standards, drug pH is not an uncommon factor driving the decision for central vascular access. In this era of commitment to evidence-based practice, the pH recommendation requires reevaluation and a critical review of the research leading to infusate pH as a decisional factor. In this narrative literature review, historical and current research was appraised and synthesized for pH of intermittently delivered intravenous medications and the development of infusion thrombophlebitis. On the basis of this review, the authors conclude and assert that pH alone is not an evidence-based indication for central line placement.

Azithromycin Extravasation in a Pediatric Patient

Objective:

To report a case of azithromycin infiltration and extravasation in a pediatric patient.

Case Summary:

A 12-month-old African American male, between chemotherapy cycles for acute myelogenous leukemia, self-dislodged his central venous catheter. A peripheral catheter was placed in the right dorsal hand and, 2 days later, azithromycin for injection infiltrated at the infusion site. Several bullae formed in the first web space and a few areas of epidermolysis, each <2 cm wide, later appeared on the forearm. Treatment included warm compresses, adaptee dressing, topical antibiotics, splint placement, and arm elevation. Four months after the incident, there was no visible impairment or restriction to the toddler's use of the right hand or arm. The only residual finding was an area of hypopigmented skin in the dorsal web between the first and second fingers.

Discussion:

As of February 10, 2005, this is the first case published in the English-language literature describing intravenous azithromycin infiltration and extravasation. Infiltration occurs generally by 3 mechanisms. These include the catheter dislodging or causing a hole in the vessel wall, intravenous fluid irritating the vessel wall leading it to rupture or leak, or backflow of intravenous fluid through the catheter insertion site.

Conclusions:

Complications can occur secondary to intravascular therapy, including extravascular extravasation. In this case, infiltration and extravasation injury were probably related to azithromycin. Immediate detection and treatment are critical to decrease morbidity associated with infiltration events.

Postoperative Massive Pulmonary Embolism Due to Superficial Vein Thrombosis of the Upper Limb

It is well known that deep vein thrombosis of the upper extremities is linked to high morbidity/mortality, resulting in 12-20% of all documented pulmonary embolism; however, there are few data about thromboembolism originating from a vein and/or a branch of a superficial vein of the upper extremities. Pulmonary embolism secondary to upper limb superficial vein thrombosis (not combined with upper extremities deep vein thrombosis) is a very rare clinical manifestation with few cases reported in the literature. We report a rare case of thrombophlebitis in departure from a superficial branch of the cephalic vein of the right arm, complicated by cardiac arrest secondary to a massive pulmonary embolism in a patient who underwent major surgery for ovarian cancer. We discuss on the numerous thrombotic risk factors, triggering a cascade of reactions and resulting in a potential fatal clinical manifestation.

Treatment for superficial infusion thrombophlebitis of the upper extremity

BACKGROUND

Although superficial thrombophlebitis of the upper extremity represents a frequent complication of intravenous catheters inserted into the peripheral veins of the forearm or hand, no consensus exists on the optimal management of this condition in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) concerning the efficacy and safety of (topical, oral or parenteral) medical therapy of superficial thrombophlebitis of the upper extremity.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched April 2015) and the Cochrane Register of Studies (2015, Issue 3). Clinical trials registries were searched up to April 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs comparing any (topical, oral or parenteral) medical treatment to no intervention or placebo, or comparing two different medical interventions (e.g. a different variant scheme or regimen of the same intervention or a different pharmacological type of treatment).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on methodological quality, patient characteristics, interventions and outcomes, including improvement of signs and symptoms as the primary effectiveness outcome, and number of participants experiencing side effects of the study treatments as the primary safety outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 13 studies (917 participants). The evaluated treatment modalities consisted of a topical treatment (11 studies), an oral treatment (2 studies) and a parenteral treatment (2 studies). Seven studies used a placebo or no intervention control group, whereas all others also or solely compared active treatment groups. No study evaluated the effects of ice or the application of cold or hot bandages. Overall, the risk of bias in individual trials was moderate to high, although poor reporting hampered a full appreciation of the risk in most studies. The overall quality of the evidence for each of the outcomes varied from low to moderate mainly due to risk of bias and imprecision, with only single trials contributing to most comparisons. Data on primary outcomes improvement of signs and symptoms and side effects attributed to the study treatment could not be statistically pooled because of the between-study differences in comparisons, outcomes and type of instruments to measure outcomes.An array of topical treatments, such as heparinoid or diclofenac gels, improved pain compared to placebo or no intervention. Compared to placebo, oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reduced signs and symptoms intensity. Safety issues were reported sparsely and were not available for some interventions, such as notoginseny creams, parenteral low-molecular-weight heparin or defibrotide. Although several trials reported on adverse events with topical heparinoid creams, Essaven gel or phlebolan versus control, the trials were underpowered to adequately measure any differences between treatment modalities. Where reported, adverse events with topical treatments consisted mainly of local allergic reactions. Only one study of 15 participants assessed thrombus extension and symptomatic venous thromboembolism with either oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or low-molecular-weight heparin, and it reported no cases of either. No study reported on the development of suppurative phlebitis, catheter-related bloodstream infections or quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence about the treatment of acute infusion superficial thrombophlebitis is limited and of low quality. Data appear too preliminary to assess the effectiveness and safety of topical treatments, systemic anticoagulation or oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Inter-rater agreement on PIVC-associated phlebitis signs, symptoms and scales

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Many peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) infusion phlebitis scales and definitions are used internationally, although no existing scale has demonstrated comprehensive reliability and validity. We examined inter-rater agreement between registered nurses on signs, symptoms and scales commonly used in phlebitis assessment.

METHODS

Seven PIVC-associated phlebitis signs/symptoms (pain, tenderness, swelling, erythema, palpable venous cord, purulent discharge and warmth) were observed daily by two raters (a research nurse and registered nurse). These data were modelled into phlebitis scores using 10 different tools. Proportions of agreement (e.g. positive, negative), observed and expected agreements, Cohen's kappa, the maximum achievable kappa, prevalence- and bias-adjusted kappa were calculated.

RESULTS

Two hundred ten patients were recruited across three hospitals, with 247 sets of paired observations undertaken. The second rater was blinded to the first's findings. The Catney and Rittenberg scales were the most sensitive (phlebitis in >20% of observations), whereas the Curran, Lanbeck and Rickard scales were the most restrictive (≤2% phlebitis). Only tenderness and the Catney (one of pain, tenderness, erythema or palpable cord) and Rittenberg scales (one of erythema, swelling, tenderness or pain) had acceptable (more than two-thirds, 66.7%) levels of inter-rater agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

Inter-rater agreement for phlebitis assessment signs/symptoms and scales is low. This likely contributes to the high degree of variability in phlebitis rates in literature. We recommend further research into assessment of infrequent signs/symptoms and the Catney or Rittenberg scales. New approaches to evaluating vein irritation that are valid, reliable and based on their ability to predict complications need exploration.

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.

IV cannula securement: protecting the patient from infection

The use of venous cannulas to administer intravenous therapy is a common clinical intervention within the hospital setting. Once in situ, IV cannulas must be securely fixed in order to prevent their movement or displacement; as unsecured cannulas pose significant health risks, such as mechanical phlebitis and an increased risk of infection. This article explores some of the complications associated with inappropriately secured IV cannulas, along with a discussion on common securement devices.

Devices and dressings to secure peripheral venous catheters to prevent complications

BACKGROUND

A peripheral venous catheter (PVC) is typically used for short-term delivery of intravascular fluids and medications. It is an essential element of modern medicine and the most frequent invasive procedure performed in hospitals. However, PVCs often fail before intravenous treatment is completed: this can occur because the device is not adequately attached to the skin, allowing the PVC to fall out, leading to complications such as phlebitis (irritation or inflammation to the vein wall), infiltration (fluid leaking into surrounding tissues) or occlusion (blockage). An inadequately secured PVC also increases the risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), as the pistoning action (moving back and forth in the vein) of the catheter can allow migration of organisms along the catheter and into the bloodstream. Despite the many dressings and securement devices available, the impact of different securement techniques for increasing PVC dwell time is still unclear; there is a need to provide guidance for clinicians by reviewing current studies systematically.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of PVC dressings and securement devices on the incidence of PVC failure.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases to identify reports of relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs): the Cochrane Wounds Group Register (searched 08 April 2015): The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to March 7 2015); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, March 7 2015); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to March 7 2015); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to March 8 2015).

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs or cluster RCTs comparing different dressings or securement devices for the stabilisation of PVCs. Cross-over trials were ineligible for inclusion, unless data for the first treatment period could be obtained.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for missing information. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs (1539 participants) in this review. Trial sizes ranged from 50 to 703 participants. These six trials made four comparisons, namely: transparent dressings versus gauze; bordered transparent dressings versus a securement device; bordered transparent dressings versus tape; and transparent dressing versus sticking plaster. There is very low quality evidence of fewer catheter dislodgements or accidental removals with transparent dressings compared with gauze (two studies, 278 participants, RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.92, P = 0.03%). The relative effects of transparent dressings and gauze on phlebitis (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.68) and infiltration (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.33) are unclear. The relative effects on PVC failure of a bordered transparent dressing and a securement device have been assessed in only one small study and these were unclear. There was very low quality evidence from the same single study of less frequent dislodgement or accidental catheter removal with bordered transparent dressings than securement devices (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.63) but more phlebitis with bordered dressings (RR 8.11, 95% CI 1.03 to 64.02) (very low quality evidence). A small single study compared bordered transparent dressings with tape and found very low quality evidence of more PVC failure with the bordered dressing (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.11) but the relative effects on dislodgement were not clear (very low quality evidence). The relative effects of transparent dressings and a sticking plaster have only been compared in one small study and are unclear. More high quality RCTs are required to determine the relative effects of alternative PVC dressings and securement devices.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is not clear if any one dressing or securement device is better than any other in securing peripheral venous catheters. There is a need for further, independent high quality trials to evaluate the many traditional as well as the newer, high use products. Given the large cost differences between some different dressings and securement devices, future trials should include a robust cost-effectiveness analysis.

Safe administration of vancomycin through a novel midline catheter: a randomized, prospective clinical trial

BACKGROUND

According to the 2011 Infusion Nursing Standards of Practice, the low pH of intravenous vancomycin requires that it be administered through a central line. However, a careful review of the literature and a retrospective analysis of the experience at New York Hospital Queens (NYHQ) did not support the position of the Standards.

PURPOSE

A prospective, controlled, randomized clinical trial was conducted to determine if intravenous vancomycin could be safely administered through a novel midline catheter (POWERWAND®, Access Scientific, San Diego, CA).

METHODS

Patients scheduled to receive short-term (<6 days) intravenous vancomycin were randomly assigned to receive treatment through either a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) or the midline study device. Complications and the costs of insertion were recorded.

RESULTS

The two groups did not differ significantly with respect to total complications (17.9% with PICCs vs. 19.9% with the midline), phlebitis (0% vs. 0%) or thrombosis (0% vs. 0%). One suspected catheter-associated bloodstream infection did occur in the PICC group. Insertion costs were $90.00 less per insertion in the midline group.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term intravenous vancomycin can be safely and cost-efficiently administered in the deep vessels of the upper arm using the midline study device.

Aloe vera for prevention and treatment of infusion phlebitis

BACKGROUND

Up to 80% of hospitalised patients receive intravenous therapy at some point during their admission. About 20% to 70% of patients receiving intravenous therapy develop phlebitis. Infusion phlebitis has become one of the most common complications in patients with intravenous therapy. However, the effects of routine treatments such as external application of 75% alcohol or 50% to 75% magnesium sulphate (MgSO4) are unsatisfactory. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop new methods to prevent and alleviate infusion phlebitis.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically assess the effects of external application of Aloe vera for the prevention and treatment of infusion phlebitis associated with the presence of an intravenous access device.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator (TSC) searched the Specialised Register (last searched February 2014) and CENTRAL (2014, Issue 1). In addition the TSC searched MEDLINE to week 5 January 2014, EMBASE to Week 6 2014 and AMED to February 2014. The authors searched the following Chinese databases until 28 February 2014: Chinese BioMedical Database; Traditional Chinese Medical Database System; China National Knowledge Infrastructure; Chinese VIP information; Chinese Medical Current Contents; Chinese Academic Conference Papers Database and Chinese Dissertation Database; and China Medical Academic Conference. Bibliographies of retrieved and relevant publications were searched. There were no restrictions on the basis of date or language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials (qRCTs) were included if they involved participants receiving topical Aloe vera or Aloe vera-derived products at the site of punctured skin, with or without routine treatment at the same site.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the data on the study characteristics, description of methodology and outcomes of the eligible trials, and assessed study quality. Data were analysed using RevMan 5.1. For dichotomous outcomes, the effects were estimated by using risk ratio (RR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous outcomes, mean differences (MD) with 95% CIs were used to estimate their effects.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 43 trials (35 RCTs and eight qRCTs) with 7465 participants were identified. Twenty-two trials with 5546 participants were involved in prevention of Aloe vera for phlebitis, and a further 21 trials with 1919 participants were involved in the treatment of phlebitis. The included studies compared external application of Aloe vera alone or plus non-Aloe vera interventions with no treatment or the same non-Aloe vera interventions. The duration of the intervention lasted from one day to 15 days. Most of the included studies were of low methodological quality with concerns for selection bias, attrition bias, reporting bias and publication bias.The effects of external application of fresh Aloe vera on preventing total incidence of phlebitis varied across the studies and we did not combine the data. Aloe vera reduced the occurrence of third degree phlebitis (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.11, P < 0.00001) and second degree phlebitis (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.31, P < 0.00001) compared with no treatment. Compared with external application of 75% alcohol, or 33% MgSO4 alone, Aloe vera reduced the total incidence of phlebitis (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.28, P = 0.004 and RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.78, P = 0.005 respectively) but there was no clear evidence of an effect when compared with 50% or 75% MgSO4 (total incidence of phlebitis RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.07, P = 0.07 and RR 1.10 95% CI 0.54 to 2.25, P = 0.79 respectively; third degree phlebitis (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.02, P = 0.051 and RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.08 to 18.73, P = 0.9 respectively; second degree phlebitis RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.23, P = 0.53 compared to 75% MgSO4) except for a reduction in second degree phlebitis when Aloe vera was compared with 50% MgSO4 (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.50, P < 0.0001).For the treatment of phlebitis, Aloe vera was more effective than 33% or 50% MgSO4 in terms of both any improvement (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.24, P < 0.0001 and RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.28, P < 0.0001 respectively) and marked improvement of phlebitis (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.70, P < 0.001 and RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.87, P = 0.0002 respectively). Compared with 50% MgSO4, Aloe vera also improved recovery rates from phlebitis (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.61, P < 0.0001). Compared with routine treatments such as external application of hirudoid, sulphonic acid mucopolysaccharide and dexamethasone used alone, addition of Aloe vera improved recovery from phlebitis (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.46, P = 0.001) and had a positive effect on overall improvement (marked improvement RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.47, P = 0.0003; any improvement RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.35, P < 0.0001). Aloe vera, either alone or in combination with routine treatment, was more effective than routine treatment alone for improving the symptoms of phlebitis including shortening the time of elimination of red swelling symptoms, time of pain relief at the location of the infusion vein and time of resolution of phlebitis. Other secondary outcomes including health-related quality of life and adverse effects were not reported in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no strong evidence for preventing or treating infusion phlebitis with external application of Aloe vera. The current available evidence is limited by the poor methodological quality and risk of selective outcome reporting of the included studies, and by variation in the size of effect across the studies. The positive effects observed with external application of Aloe vera in preventing or treating infusion phlebitis compared with no intervention or external application of 33% or 50% MgSO4 should therefore be viewed with caution.

Management, clinical outcomes, and complications of acute cannula-related peripheral vein phlebitis of the upper extremity: A retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

Acute phlebitis due to peripheral vein catheter use is frequently observed in clinical practice, and requires surgical therapy in severe cases. In this retrospective study, we aimed to increase awareness, evaluate current treatment options, and develop recommendations to optimize treatment outcomes.

METHODS

A total of 240 hospitalized patients with a diagnosis of upper extremity phlebitis from 2006 to 2011 were evaluated in terms of initial clinical features, parameters, co-morbidities and treatment regimes. Severity of phlebitis was graded according to the Baxter scale by assessing clinical symptoms such as pain, erythema, induration, swelling, or palpable venous cord (grade 0-5). Patients were divided in two subgroups: conservative (n = 132) and operative (n = 108) treatment.

RESULTS

Surgical intervention rates and severity were higher for cannula insertion in the cubital fossa region than for cannula insertion in the forearm and hand region (p < 0.05). Baxter scale grades were higher in the surgical treatment group than in the conservative treatment group (4.47 vs. 2.67, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The cubital fossa region is vulnerable to severe phlebitis and is not recommended as the first site of choice for cannulation. Phlebitis of Baxter scale grade 4 or 5 should be considered for early surgical intervention.

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.

Central or peripheral catheters for initial venous access of ICU patients: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

The vast majority of ICU patients require some form of venous access. There are no evidenced-based guidelines concerning the use of either central or peripheral venous catheters, despite very different complications. It remains unknown which to insert in ICU patients. We investigated the rate of catheter-related insertion or maintenance complications in two strategies: one favoring the central venous catheters and the other peripheral venous catheters.

DESIGN

Multicenter, controlled, parallel-group, open-label randomized trial.

SETTING

Three French ICUs.

PATIENTS

Adult ICU patients with equal central or peripheral venous access requirement.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomized to receive central venous catheters or peripheral venous catheters as initial venous access.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

The primary endpoint was the rate of major catheter-related complications within 28 days. Secondary endpoints were the rate of minor catheter-related complications and a composite score-assessing staff utilization and time spent to manage catheter insertions. Analysis was intention to treat. We randomly assigned 135 patients to receive a central venous catheter and 128 patients to receive a peripheral venous catheter. Major catheter-related complications were greater in the peripheral venous catheter than in the central venous catheter group (133 vs 87, respectively, p=0.02) although none of those was life threatening. Minor catheter-related complications were 201 with central venous catheters and 248 with peripheral venous catheters (p=0.06). 46% (60/128) patients were managed throughout their ICU stay with peripheral venous catheters only. There were significantly more peripheral venous catheter-related complications per patient in patients managed solely with peripheral venous catheter than in patients that received peripheral venous catheter and at least one central venous catheter: 1.92 (121/63) versus 1.13 (226/200), p<0.005. There was no difference in central venous catheter-related complications per patient between patients initially randomized to peripheral venous catheters but subsequently crossed-over to central venous catheter and patients randomized to the central venous catheter group. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival probability did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

In ICU patients with equal central or peripheral venous access requirement, central venous catheters should preferably be inserted: a strategy associated with less major complications.

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.

Incidence of Intravenous Catheter-Site Complications in Patients Treated with Linezolid or Vancomycin for Skin Infections Caused by Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus

Objective

The aim of the study was to compare all-cause adverse events (AEs) and those caused by intravenous (IV) catheter-site complications (IVCSCs) using data from a previously published study of the use of linezolid or vancomycin for treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSI) suspected or proven to be caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

Methods

To examine the incidence of AEs caused by the 2 antibiotic treatments, we conducted a post hoc analysis of data from a prospective, open-label, randomized, multicenter phase 4 study. Patients were randomized to treatment with either oral (PO) or IV linezolid 600 mg every 12 hours or with IV vancomycin 15 mg/kg every 12 hours with dose adjustment as needed. Study treatment was administered for 7 to 14 days. We excluded patients with baseline bacteremia (n = 11) and those who started on PO linezolid (n = 215). We analyzed data only from patients who received at least 1 dose of IV study medication.

Results

Patient demographics and types of cSSSI were comparable among patients receiving linezolid (n = 315) and vancomycin (n = 511). Mean durations of IV therapy for patients receiving linezolid and vancomycin were 4.5 days and 7.6 days (1,418 and 3,884 patient-days, respectively). All-cause AEs were reported in 50% and 51% of patients in the linezolid and vancomycin groups, respectively; all-cause IVCSCs were reported in 2% and 7%, respectively. Treatment-related IVCSCs were reported in 1 patient in the linezolid group and 16 patients in the vancomycin group.

Conclusions

The overall rate of AEs was similar among patients receiving linezolid and vancomycin, but AEs caused by IVCSCs were more frequent among patients receiving vancomycin and rare episodes of bacteremia and sepsis were more common in the linezolid group.

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.

Peripheral venous catheters: an under-evaluated problem

Peripheral venous catheters (PVC) are the most frequently used invasive devices in hospitals. Up to 70% of patients require a peripheral venous line during their hospital stay, and conservative estimates suggest that PVC days account for 15-20% of total patient days in acute care hospitals. Most published studies focus on thrombophlebitis and address the issue of scheduled catheter change, but there is still no consensus on the optimal time point for PVC change, or whether catheter replacement is required at all. Although PVC-associated catheter-related bloodstream infections (PVC-BSI) are far more serious than thrombophlebitis, few studies address this issue, and a large multicentre trial is lacking. Some studies on thrombophlebitis mention that no, or only a few, PVC-BSIs were identified, but such results must be interpreted with caution. Current data available on PVC-BSI suggest incidence density rates of 0.2-0.7 episodes per 1000 device days, which appear low when compared with other catheters. However, some studies report absolute PVC-BSI numbers in the range of central line-associated infections. It remains unclear whether PVC-BSI should be considered a serious healthcare problem or simply a very rare event. More research is needed both to capture the dimension of the problem and to provide efficient control measures.

Clinical audit documenting insertion date of peripheral intravenous cannulae

The Royal College Of Nursing (RCN) have evidence-based guidelines with regard to optimal time for changing peripheral intravenous cannulae (PIC) and documentation post-insertion (patient and nursing notes). This clinical audit assesses the compliance with respect to the RCN and Eastbourne District General Hospital guidelines of documenting the date post-insertion of PIC, optimal time for changing cannulae and rates of superficial phlebitis on the surgical wards. All PIC, their dressings, sites and intravenous infusions were examined on all inpatients on the surgical wards on three random days. Staff awareness with regard to RCN and local guidelines for optimal time to change peripheral venous cannulae and documentation post-insertion was assessed. The majority of staff nurses correctly stated that the optimal time for changing an uncomplicated PIC was 72 hours, despite this 13.8% had a cannulae which had been inserted for more than 72 hours. Our study has found that despite medical and nursing staff being aware of RCN and local guidelines, there is still poor compliance with regards to documentation, optimal time for changing and thus increased levels of superficial phlebitis post insertion of PIC.

Evidence for elective replacement of peripheral intravenous catheter to prevent thrombophlebitis: a systematic review

AIM

This paper reports a review of the scientific evidence for elective replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters in adults in the absence of any clinical complications, with the aim being to reduce the incidence and severity of thrombophlebitis.

BACKGROUND

The incidence of thrombophlebitis associated with peripheral intravenous catheters has been reported to range from 5.3% to 77.5%. Many factors that increase the risk for thrombophlebitis have been reported, of which time in situ is one. In Sweden, the recommended guideline is elective replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters every 12-24 hours.

METHOD

A systematic literature review was carried out in 2005 using the Cochrane Library, OvidMedline and CINAHL databases and hand searching of reference lists and with keywords catheterization, peripheral, thrombophlebitis and parenteral nutrition. The review included randomized controlled trials of elective replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters in adults. Three reviewers assessed the data found according to predetermined criteria.

FINDING

Three randomized control trials met the inclusion criteria and were retrieved for critical appraisal. The samples in two of the trials included patients requiring total parenteral nutrition. Patients in the third trial were receiving crystalloid and drugs. Time intervals for elective replacement varied. Study quality and relevance were rated as 'medium' in two of the trials and as 'low' in the third trial.

CONCLUSION

Limited scientific evidence suggests that elective replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters reduces the incidence and severity of thrombophlebitis.

Early switch to oral antibiotics and early discharge guidelines in the management of community-acquired pneumonia

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The major cost of managing community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) relates to the duration i.v. antibiotic use and length of hospital stay (LOS). Guidelines on early switch to oral antibiotics and early discharge from hospital may help to achieve a unified approach to managing CAP. The aim of this study was to assess the benefits and safety of these guidelines in an Australian respiratory medicine unit.

METHODS

This prospective study included consecutive patients admitted with a diagnosis of CAP over a 6-month period. Early switch to oral antibiotics and early discharge guidelines were implemented one month prior to the evaluation period. Comparison was made to a retrospective control group admitted before the guidelines were implemented. Data collection included patient demographics, clinical and outcome parameters, duration of i.v. antibiotics and LOS. Thirty-day outcomes on patient safety and satisfaction were collected from the prospective group.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-five patients in the prospective group were compared to 100 patients in the controls. Baseline characteristics were similar between the comparison groups. Both the mean duration of i.v. antibiotics used (3.38 +/- 0.22 vs. 3.99 +/- 0.28 days, P = 0.03) and LOS (7.62 +/- 0.60 vs. 8.36 +/- 0.55 days, P = 0.04) were significantly shorter in the prospective group. Thirty-day readmission rate was 6% and patient self-reported overall satisfaction was 93.9% in those who were followed up.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of early switch and early discharge guidelines for CAP reduced the duration of i.v. antibiotics and LOS while maintaining high levels of safety and patient satisfaction.

Flebite no pré e pós-operatório de pacientes neurocirúrgicos

OBJETIVOS: Verificar a incidência de flebite em pacientes internados em uma unidade de neurocirurgia, o tempo de permanência de cateteres intravenosos periféricos e os possíveis fatores de risco para o desenvolvimento de flebite. MÉTODOS: Estudo do tipo coorte prospectivo, com uma amostra 60 pacientes, nos quais foram inseridos 152 cateteres intravenosos periféricos do tipo sobre agulha. RESULTADOS: Os resultados evidenciaram incidência de flebite de 10,5%, em relação à proporcionalidade de cateteres. O tempo de permanência dos cateteres variou de 2 a 216 horas, sendo que os cateteres com permanência inferior a 72 horas tiveram menor incidência de flebite. CONCLUSÕES: Esta incidência encontra-se acima da aceita em padrões de prática internacionais. Os fatores de risco para flebite identificados neste estudo foram: tempo de permanência maior que 72 horas, manutenção intermitente dos cateteres e inserção no período de pós-operatório.

Effect of quinupristin/dalfopristin on 3T3 and Eahy926 cells in vitro in comparison to other antimicrobial agents with the potential to induce infusion phlebitis

Infusion phlebitis is a common clinical problem that is observed with some antimicrobial agents, when being administered intravenously. In this study, cultured murine fibroblasts and immortalised human endothelial cells were exposed to three antibiotics at clinically relevant concentrations to assess their toxic potential in two established cytotoxicity assays. BALB/c 3T3 fibroblasts and Eahy926 endothelial cells were exposed to quinupristin/dalfopristin (QD), erythromycin and levofloxacin at increasing concentrations. For assessment of cytotoxicity the cells were incubated with neutral red (NR) or stained with crystal violet (CV). Measurements were done by photometry. At the concentration range tested QD and erythromycin showed a concentration-dependent cytotoxic effect in both cell cultures. In 3T3 cells the half-maximal effect concentration (EC50) was 20 mg/l for QD and 340 mg/l for erythromycin in the NR uptake test and 12 and 200 mg/l, respectively, in the CV assay. In Eahy926 cells the EC50 was 50 mg/l for QD and 880 mg/l for erythromycin in the NR uptake test and 40 and 750 mg/l, respectively, in the CV assay. No EC50 could be established in both cell types for levofloxacin. Eahy926 cells were less sensitive to cytotoxic stimuli than 3T3 fibroblasts. Cytotoxic effects in both cell cultures occurred in the following order: QD > erythromycin >> levofloxacin. This ranking correlates well with the frequency of local adverse effects observed with the infusion of these antibiotics in patients. Thus, these in vitro assays may serve as an estimate for the prediction of local tolerability of antibiotics when administered parenterally.

[How to improve central venous catheter use in intensive care unit?]

OBJECTIVE

Central venous catheter (CVC) insertion is routinely performed in critically ill patients but causes mechanical, thrombotic, or infectious adverse events in 15% of cases. It should be possible to improve the benefit/risk ratio of central venous catheterization in intensive care unit.

DATA SOURCE

We searched Pubmed using the terms: "catheterization, central venous, peripheral, adverse effects"; then "thrombosis, phlebitis, thrombophlebitis, jugular vein, femoral vein, subclavian vein, pneumothorax, haemothorax, extravasation of diagnostic and therapeutic materials". We then discuss this with a panel of intensivists in a workshop.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Few data are available on the risk/benefit ratio of central vs. peripheral venous catheterization. In some cases (cardiac arrest, rapid fluid loading, parenteral nutrition) the choice is based on clear recommendations. In others (irritating drugs, pressure monitoring, peripheral access failure), the choice depends on medical and nurses daily evaluation. When CVC insertion is mandatory, it is important to implement the recommendations of the consensus conferences to prevent infectious and thrombotic complications. Mechanical complications should be improved by selecting the most appropriate insertion site, and, if unsuccessful, switching to another operator before the complications occurs. Doppler-ultrasound guidance is recommended, but is limited by the cost and training of the technique.

CONCLUSION

Studies evaluating the risk/benefit ratio of CVCs versus peripheral catheters are needed to develop a venous-access strategy for ICU patients. When a CVC is mandatory, recent data are available to improve the risk/benefit ratio and can be used to build a decision algorithm.

Recurrent Infusion Phlebitis Induced by Cyclosporine

OBJECTIVE

To report a case of recurrent infusion phlebitis during cyclosporine treatment, which, as of October 14, 2004, is a previously unreported adverse effect of this drug.

CASE SUMMARY

A 28-year-old man previously diagnosed with ulcerative colitis was admitted to the internal medicine department due to exacerbation of the condition and treated with intravenous hydrocortisone, followed by treatment with intravenous cyclosporine. During this treatment, the patient experienced quick, recurrent, and significant infusion phlebitis. The intravenous catheter and its site needed to be replaced repeatedly during the continuum of treatment, eventually leading to complete remission of the ulcerative colitis. After 8 months, the patient was still in remission, with no permanent signs of damage to the involved phlebitic veins.

DISCUSSION

Infusion phlebitis induced by drugs is a common phenomenon that causes pain and difficulty in a patient's treatment. Many drugs, mainly antibiotics and cytotoxic drugs, have previously been reported to induce infusion phlebitis. We describe the first report of a patient with cyclosporine–induced recurrent infusion phlebitis. According to the Naranjo probability scale, the relationship of the encountered phlebitis to cyclosporine therapy is probable.

CONCLUSIONS

Recurrent infusion phlebitis is a previously unreported adverse effect encountered during treatment with cyclosporine. This important adverse effect must be considered when treating patients with this unique drug.

Midline Catheters

Evangelical Community Hospital at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, is a small community hospital with 110 beds. This organization sought a device to bridge between the short peripheral catheter and the peripherally inserted central catheter. The midline catheter provided an answer to this dilemma. However, a literature search for midline catheters yielded only four published articles, and only one of these was related to outcomes. The drugs used and the type of patients treated at Evangelical Community Hospital provided a challenge for the infusion therapist. This article examines the management of the patients who fell into a midlength of stay, and for whom both the short peripheral catheter and the peripherally inserted central catheter were inappropriate.

Effect of transdermal glyceryl trinitrate and anti-inflammatory gel in infusion phlebitis

BACKGROUND

Phlebitis is the commonest complication of intravenous infusion. It has been suggested that it is initiated by venoconstriction at the infusion site, hence treatment with a vasodilator may reduce its incidence.

METHODS

A prospective controlled study was carried out on the effect of transdermal glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) and topical anti-inflammatory gel (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug; NSAID) on the survival of peripheral intravenous infusion in 386 patients.

RESULTS

A total of 34.9% (43 out of 123) of the infusions failed in the control group compared with 14.1% (18 out of 127) in the NSAID group (P < 0.05) and 30.8% (43 out of 136) in the GTN group (P < 0.05). In the control group 31 positive cultures were obtained. Twenty-one positive cultures were obtained in the GTN group and four cases of bacterial proliferation were observed in the NSAID group.

CONCLUSIONS

Infusion phlebitis is a common problem in hospitalized patients and its incidence can be effectively reduced by NSAI gel and GTN but NSAI gel is more effective than GTN.

Contamination Control in Nursing With Filtration

Filters often are viewed as screens with openings smaller than the particles intended to be removed by a process technically known as direct interception. However, filter manufacturing embraces far more advanced technological approaches, with an evolution toward selective removal of cells or soluble constituents from complex physiologic solutions. An appreciation of filtration development makes it easy to understand how differently manufactured filters with the same claims may not perform identically. This article focuses on the filtration of intravenous solutions and point-of-use hospital water.

The epidemiology of peripheral vein infusion thrombophlebitis: a critical review

We critically assessed studies on the clinical importance, diagnosis, incidence, and pathogenesis of peripheral vein infusion thrombophlebitis, including catheter-related and patient-related risk factors. We reviewed the evidence linking thrombosis, particularly prothrombotic states such as the inherited thrombophilic disorders, with peripheral vein infusion thrombophlebitis. Peripheral vein infusion thrombophlebitis occurs in 25% to 35% of hospitalized patients with peripheral intravenous catheters and has both patient-related implications (e.g., sepsis) and economic consequences (e.g., extra nursing time). Although duration of catheterization, catheter-related infection, and catheter material are important risk factors for peripheral vein infusion thrombophlebitis, patient-related risk factors are not well elucidated.

The peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC): a prospective study of its natural history after cubital fossa insertion

A prospective cohort study was undertaken to describe the natural history of the cubital fossa peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC), determine which factors influenced the hazard of complication and develop a standard methodology for evaluation of a PICC service. A total of 4349 patient days of PICC observation were analysed using survival analysis techniques. The median time to PICC removal for a complication was 60 days. The most common complications were phlebitis, malposition and tip migration. Complications usually occurred during the first week. There was only one episode of line-related sepsis. Size 3 French gauge catheters had a complication rate of 7.3 per 1,000 line days compared to 14.2 for 4 French catheters (hazard rate 1.26 90% CI 1.02 to 1.55). PICCs requiring two or more attempts at insertion were more likely to develop complications than those inserted at the first attempt: 20 per 1,000 line days vs 10.5 but the confidence intervals were wide (hazard rate 1.91, 90% CI 0.90 to 4.05). Operator (amongst the four experienced operators who inserted all PICCs), arm of placement, or medial or lateral placement in the cubitalfossa did not influence PICC survivaL

Efficacy and safety of oral and early-switch therapy for community-acquired pneumonia: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

We sought to determine the safety, efficacy, and cost of oral therapy for patients with community-acquired pneumonia. In patients with nonsevere pneumonia, conventional (parenteral) treatment was compared with the oral route; in patients with severe pneumonia, conventional treatment was compared with early switch from parenteral to oral therapy.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

We randomly assigned 85 hospitalized patients with nonsevere pneumonia to one of two groups: 41 received oral antimicrobials from admission, and 44 received parenteral antimicrobials until they had been afebrile for 72 hours before switching to oral treatment. We randomly assigned 103 patients with severe pneumonia who had initially been treated with parenteral antimicrobials to one of two groups: 48 were switched to oral therapy after 48 hours of treatment (early switch), and 55 received a full 10-day course of parenteral antibiotics.

RESULTS

Among patients with nonsevere pneumonia, there were no deaths in the oral treatment group, and one death (2%) in the parenteral treatment group (95% confidence interval [CI] for between-group [oral minus parenteral] difference: -7% to 2%, P = 0.3). The time to resolution of morbidity was < or =5 days in 34 (83%) patients in the oral treatment group and 39 (88%) patients in the parenteral treatment group (P = 0.5); there were treatment failures in 4 (10%) patients in the oral treatment group and 14 (32%) patients in the parenteral treatment group (P = 0.02). Among patients with severe pneumonia, there was one (2%) death in the early-switch group and no deaths in the full course of parenteral antibiotics groups (95% CI for between-group [early switch vs. full course] difference: -2% to 6%, P = 0.5). The time to resolution of morbidity was < or =5 days in 38 (79%) patients in the early-switch group and 41 (75%) in the full-course group (P = 0.3). There were 12 (25%) treatment failures in the early-switch group and 13 (24%) in the full-course group (P = 0.9). There were fewer adverse events in the oral and early-switch groups, primarily due to lower rates of infusion-related phlebitis. Significant cost savings, mainly due to a shorter hospitalization, occurred among patients with severe pneumonia in the early-switch group.

CONCLUSION

Inpatients with nonsevere community-acquired pneumonia can be effectively and safely treated with oral antimicrobials from the time of admission, whereas those with severe pneumonia can be treated with early-switch therapy.

[Phlebitis due to intravenous administration of macrolide antibiotics. A comparative study of erythromycin versus clarithromycin]

BACKGROUND

To know and to compare the incidence of phlebitis due to intravenous administration of macrolide antibiotics erythromycin and clarithromycin.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

Non-randomized prospective study of consecutive patients who were diagnosed of community pneumonia and treated with intravenous macrolides (19 with erythromycin and 25 with clarithromycin).

RESULTS

The cumulative incidence of phlebitis in patients treated with erythromycin was 78.9% (incidence rate of 0.40 episodes/patient-day) and in those treated with clarithromycin 76% (incidence rate of 0.35 episodes/patient-day).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of phlebitis is high and similar with intravenous administration of both macrolides.

Infusion phlebitis in post-operative patients: when and why

BACKGROUND

The most common complication of intravenous therapy is infusion phlebitis. This study was done to prospectively assess its frequency in a series of consecutive patients who will undergo surgery, and to identify which variables may predict an increased risk for phlebitis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

400 consecutive patients who will undergo surgery in a general surgery department were included. Only the first catheter, inserted the day before surgery, was taken into account. Eighteen variables (from the infusion, the catheter and from the patient) were prospectively evaluated for their contribution to the occurrence of phlebitis.

RESULTS

60/400 patients (15%) developed phlebitis, and most of them needed insertion of a further catheter. The univariate analysis showed that patients who developed phlebitis were older, and their pre-operative levels of both blood haemoglobin and neutrophil cound were significantly higher than those in patients who did not develop phlebitis. However, the multivariate analysis only confirmed the association with blood haemoglobin levels: the risk of phlebitis sharply increased in the patients with the highest haemoglobin levels. As to the influence of time on phlebitis development, there was a significant decrease in the day-specific risk, from the 5th day on.

COMMENTS

In our series, blood haemoglobin levels were found to be the only variable associated to a higher risk of phlebitis. Besides, in contrast with the recommendations by the Centers for Disease Control, no significant increase in the day-specific risk of phlebitis was found. Thus, a guideline to select the type of catheter to be inserted in an individual patient is suggested.