Search

Despite vascular access devices (VADs) being vital for patient care, device failure rates are unacceptably high with around 25% of central venous devices, and 30–40% of peripheral venous devices, developing complications that result in VAD failure. The use of tissue adhesive is a novel method of securing VADs and is gaining popularity, however the evidence base guiding its clinical use is still emerging. This article aims to review the types and properties of tissue adhesives, provide an overview of the existing evidence base, and discuss how tissue adhesives may be used in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses improved methods for the insertion of vascular access devices (VAD) in clinical practice to avoid accidental dislodgement of VADs. It mentions the future methods for VAD securement including tissue adhesives, subcutaneous tunneling, and peripherally inserted central catheters. It states the author views that decision making on the security aspect of VAD products need to supported by research for effective treatment.

Introduction: First-insertion success rates for peripheral vascular access devices (PVADs) in patients with difficult venous access (DIVA) are low, which negatively affects staff workload, patient experience, and organizational cost. There is mixed evidence regarding the impact of a peripheral vascular access device with retractable coiled tip guidewire (GW; AccuCath™, BD) on the first-insertion success rate. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the use of long GW-PVADs, compared with standard PVADs, reduces the risk of first-time insertion failure, in patients admitted to emergency departments (EDs). Methods and analysis: A parallel-group, two-arm, randomized controlled trial will be carried out in two Australian EDs to compare long GW-PVADs (5.8 cm length) against standard care PVADs (short or long). Patients ≥18 years of age meeting DIVA criteria will be eligible for the trial. The sample size is 203 participants for each arm. Web-based central randomization will be used to ensure allocation concealment. Neither clinicians nor patients can be blinded to treatment allocation. Primary outcome is the first-insertion success rate. Secondary outcomes include the number of insertion attempts, time to insert PVAD, all-cause failure, dwell-time, patient-reported pain, serious adverse events, complications, subsequent vascular access devices required, patient satisfaction, staff satisfaction, and healthcare costs. Differences between the two groups will be analyzed using Cox proportional hazards regression. Cost-effectiveness analysis will also be conducted. Intention-to-treat analysis will be used. Ethics and dissemination: The study is approved by Metro South Ethics Committee (HREC/2022/QMS/82264) and Griffith University (2022/077). The findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Trial registration: ACTRN12622000299707 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this scoping review is to conduct a systematic search and establish the current state of evidence for tools and instruments used to measure self-reported outcomes and experiences, including satisfaction scores, specifically for peripheral venous access devices (PVADs). Methods: A systematic search of the literature will be conducted using medical databases including: MEDLINE (Ovid); CINAHL (EbscoHost); PubMed (NCBI); and Scopus (Elsevier); Google (Scholar); and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Experimental, and observational studies, published in English, after 1990 will be eligible for inclusion if they: consist of (i) a survey, instrument or tool that is designed to (ii) collect outcome, experience and/or satisfaction data, relating to PVAD insertion, care, maintenance and/or removal, among (iii) adult and paediatric participants. Conclusions: PVAD-specific patient-reported outcome and experience measures are necessary for researchers, clinicians and policy decision makers to explore more thoroughly the quality of PVAD care provided, and further inform health economic analyses in the context of quality improvement interventions for vascular access devices. This scoping review will establish the existence—or paucity—of instruments to measure these selfreported outcomes and experiences of PVADs, in order to guide value-based healthcare delivery into the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are widely used, but failure is unacceptably common with up to 69% failing before treatment is complete. PIVC securement reduces failure, but the optimal way to achieve this is unclear. Tapes and supplementary securement products are widely used, however rigorous testing of these to reduce PIVC failure remains unexplored. Methods and analysis: In adult medical-surgical wards at a tertiary hospital, this pilot randomized controlled trial tests standard care (bordered polyurethane dressing plus nonsterile tape over the extension tubing) against two securement interventions (intervention one: standard care plus two sterile tape strips over the PIVC hub; intervention two: intervention one plus a tubular bandage). Patients >18 years of age requiring a PIVC for >24 hours are eligible. Patients with laboratoryconfirmed positive blood cultures within 24 hours of screening, known allergy to study products, current or high-risk of skin tear, or non-English speaking without interpreter are excluded. Sample size is 35 per trial arm, and central randomization is computer-generated with allocation concealed until entry. Patients and clinical staff cannot be blinded to treatment allocation. However, infection outcomes are assessed by a blinded investigator. Primary outcome is study feasibility. Secondary outcomes (PIVC failure, dwell time, skin adverse events, PIVC colonization, and cost) are compared between groups. Feasibility outcomes are reported descriptively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Adult medical and surgical patients admitted to tertiary hospitals regularly have peripheral venous catheters (PVCs) inserted for their treatment. Anecdotally, patients report varying levels of pain and anxiety during the insertion procedure; however, lived experiences of patients are not well documented in the literature. The aim of this study was to gain an understanding of patients’ experiences of PVC insertion. Some 10 participants were purposively sampled for semi-structured interviews, from the medical and surgical wards at a tertiary hospital in Queensland, Australia. Four key themes developed from the interview data: communication between the patient and the inserter; technique of device insertion; competence of the inserter; and location of the device. These themes informed practical ways that nurses might improve the patient experience, including: consultation with patients regarding device insertion preferences; siting the PVC in locations other than the antecubital fossa and hand; ensuring experienced and confident inserters are available to insert PVCs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hospitalised patients receiving intravenous antimicrobial therapy require a reliable device through which this is delivered. Short peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are the default device for antimicrobial therapy but up to half fail before therapy completion, leading to suboptimal drug dosing, patient distress from repeated insertions, and increased healthcare costs. This study will investigate the use of long PIVCs to determine if they are more reliable at delivering antimicrobial therapy. Methods: A two-arm, parallel randomised controlled trial of hospitalised adults requiring at least 3 days of peripherally compatible intravenous antimicrobials. Participants will be randomised to a short (<4 cm) or long (4.5-6.4 cm) PIVC. After interim analysis (n=70) for feasibility and safety, 192 participants will be recruited. Primary outcome is disruption to antimicrobial administration from all-cause PIVC failure. Secondary outcomes include: number of devices to complete therapy, patient-reported pain and satisfaction, and a cost analysis. Ethical and regulatory approvals have been received. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Integrated peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) demonstrate clinical efficacy, however, device complexity and design differences may be a potential barrier to implementation. Aims: To assess nurse acceptability of integrated PIVC systems. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was nested within a multicentre randomised controlled trial. One hundred nurses caring for patients with integrated and non-integrated PIVCs completed a 17-item survey about key differences between devices (eg function and appearance, perceived patient comfort and skin injuries). Findings: Most nurses reported the integrated PIVC wings prevented device movement (80%), achieved patient comfort in areas of flexion (78%), and no patients developed skin injuries (100%). Nurses rated the ease of accessing and overall confidence using the integrated PIVC as significantly higher than the non-integrated design (P<0.001).Conclusion: The integrated PIVC received positive feedback from nurses and had few barriers to implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A review is presented of the article "Routine Versus Clinically Indicated Replacement of Peripheral Intravenous Catheters: A Randomised Controlled Equivalence Trial" by C. M. Rickard, J. Webster, M. C. Wallis et al., which appeared originally in a 2012 issue of "The Lancet".