Search

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]

Background: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are commonly used for delivering intravenous therapy. PICC failure is unacceptably high (up to 40%) due to mechanical, infectious and thrombotic complications. Poor securement potentiates all complication types. This randomised controlled trial (RCT) aimed to examine the feasibility of a large RCT of four dressing and securement methods to prevent PICC failure.Methods: This single-centre pilot RCT included 124 admitted medical/surgical/cancer patients aged ≥ 16 years with a PICC. Interventions were: (i) standard polyurethane dressing and sutureless securement device (SPU + SSD, control); (ii) polyurethane with absorbent lattice pad dressing (PAL + Tape); (iii) combination securement-dressing (CSD); and (iv) tissue adhesive (TA + SPU). All groups except TA + SPU had a chlorhexidine-gluconate (CHG) impregnated disc. Feasibility outcomes were recruitment and safety/acceptability of the interventions. The primary outcome was PICC failure, a composite of PICC removal for local infection, catheter-associated bloodstream infection, dislodgement, occlusion, and/or catheter fracture. Secondary outcomes included individual complications, dressing failure and dwell time, PICC dwell time, skin complications/phlebitis indicators, product costs, and patient and staff satisfaction. Qualitative feedback was also collected.Results: PICC failure incidence was: PAL + CHG + Tape (1/5; 20%; 17.4/1000 days), SPU + SSD + CHG (control) (4/39; 10%; 9.0/1000 days), TA + SPU (3/35; 9%; 9.6/1000 days), and CSD + CHG (3/42; 7%; 9.4/1000 days). Recruitment to PAL + CHG + Tape was ceased after five participants due to concerns of PICC dislodgement when removing the dressing. CSD + CHG, TA + SPU (TA applied only at PICC insertion time), and control treatments were acceptable to patients and health professionals.Conclusion: A large RCT of CSD + CHG and TA + SPU (but not PAL + CHG + Tape) versus standard care is feasible.Trial Registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616000027415 . Registered on 15 January 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Peripheral venous catheterisation is the most frequent invasive procedure performed in hospitalised patients; yet over 30% of peripheral venous catheters fail before treatment ends. Objectives To assess the effects of peripheral venous catheter dressings and securement devices on the incidence of peripheral venous catheter failure. Data sources We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE; EMBASE and CINAHL for any randomised controlled trials comparing different dressings or securement devices used to stabilise peripheral venous catheters. The reference lists of included studies were also searched for any previously unidentified studies. Results We included six randomised controlled trials (1539 participants) that compared various dressings and securement devices (transparent dressings versus gauze; bordered transparent dressings versus a securement device; bordered transparent dressings versus tape; and transparent dressing versus sticking plaster). Trial sizes ranged from 50 to 703 participants. The quality of evidence ranged from low to very low. Catheter dislodgements or accidental removals were lower with transparent dressings compared with gauze (two studies, 278 participants, risk ratio (RR) 0.40; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17–0.92, P = 0.03%). However, the relative effects of transparent dressings and gauze on phlebitis (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.47–1.68) and infiltration (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.48–1.33) are unclear. A single study identified less frequent dislodgement or accidental catheter removal with bordered transparent dressings compared to a securement device (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03–0.63) but more phlebitis with bordered dressings (RR 8.11, 95% CI 1.03–64.02). A comparison of a bordered transparent dressing and tape found more peripheral venous catheter failure with the bordered dressing (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.08–3.11) but the relative effect on dislodgement was unclear. Conclusions There is no strong evidence to suggest that any one dressing or securement product for preventing peripheral venous catheter failure is more effective than any other product. All of the included trials were small, had high or unclear risk of bias for one or more of the quality elements we assessed, and wide confidence intervals, indicating that further randomised controlled trials are necessary. There is a need for suitably powered, high quality trials to evaluate the newer, high use products and novel – but expensive – securement methods, such as surgical grade glue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The reported incidence of peripheral intravenous catheter (PIV) failure has been as high as 69%. This is in part due to inadequate stabilisation or securement to the skin, which allows micro-motion of the catheter within the vein.Methods: A pilot open randomised controlled trial of 300 patients was conducted in the medical and surgical wards of a large tertiary hospital. A superiority parallel pragmatic design was used. Eligible patients over the age of 16 years were randomised using a centralised service (randomly varied block sizes and 1:1 ratio) to have PIV dressings of either (i) a bordered polyurethane dressing (BPU, standard care) or (ii) the integrated securement device (ISD). Allocation was concealed until entry. The primary outcome of feasibility addressed eligibility, consent, protocol adherence and retention rates. All-cause PIV failure was an additional primary outcome. This was a composite of infection (laboratory-confirmed local or bloodstream infection), occlusion or infiltration, dislodgement, phlebitis and thrombosis. Group comparisons were by proportions, incidence rates per 1000 PIV days and hazard ratios. Secondary outcomes were local or bloodstream infection, occlusion or infiltration, dislodgement, phlebitis, thrombosis, PIV dwell time, safety and adverse events and patient satisfaction with study products. Analysis was by intention to treat and the patient was the unit of measurement. Multivariable modelling was undertaken.Results: Feasibility outcomes were 91% of screened patients were eligible, 98% of invited patients consented, 100% of randomised participants received the allocated intervention on insertion and 1/300 (< 1%) were lost to follow-up. In total, 792 PIV days were studied. PIV failure occurred in 43/150 BPU patients (29%) and 40/150 ISD patients (27%) (119 vs 93 per 1000 PIV days; incidence rate ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.50-1.23). In the multivariate model, ISD (hazard ratio 0.51, 95% CI 0.29-0.89) and admission for a surgical emergency were significantly associated with decreased failure, while female gender, wound, hand insertion and more frequent PIV use were significantly associated with increased PIV failure.Conclusion: ISDs were significantly associated with decreased failure in the multivariable modelling. Feasibility outcomes were supportive of the need to undertake a larger trial to confirm these results.Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616000984493 . Registered 27 July 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]