Search

Background: Two billion peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are used globally each year, but optimal dressing and securement methods are not well established. We aimed to compare the efficacy and costs of three alternative approaches to standard non-bordered polyurethane dressings.Methods: We did a pragmatic, randomised controlled, parallel-group superiority trial at two hospitals in Queensland, Australia. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and required PIVC insertion for clinical treatment, which was expected to be required for longer than 24 h. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) via a centralised web-based randomisation service using random block sizes, stratified by hospital, to receive tissue adhesive with polyurethane dressing, bordered polyurethane dressing, a securement device with polyurethane dressing, or polyurethane dressing (control). Randomisation was concealed before allocation. Patients, clinicians, and research staff were not masked because of the nature of the intervention, but infections were adjudicated by a physician who was masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was all-cause PIVC failure (as a composite of complete dislodgement, occlusion, phlebitis, and infection [primary bloodstream infection or local infection]). Analysis was by modified intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12611000769987.Findings: Between March 18, 2013, and Sept 9, 2014, we randomly assigned 1807 patients to receive tissue adhesive with polyurethane (n=446), bordered polyurethane (n=454), securement device with polyurethane (n=453), or polyurethane (n=454); 1697 patients comprised the modified intention-to-treat population. 163 (38%) of 427 patients in the tissue adhesive with polyurethane group (absolute risk difference -4·5% [95% CI -11·1 to 2·1%], p=0·19), 169 (40%) of 423 of patients in the bordered polyurethane group (-2·7% [-9·3 to 3·9%] p=0·44), 176 (41%) of 425 patients in the securement device with poplyurethane group (-1·2% [-7·9% to 5·4%], p=0·73), and 180 (43%) of 422 patients in the polyurethane group had PIVC failure. 17 patients in the tissue adhesive with polyurethane group, two patients in the bordered polyurethane group, eight patients in the securement device with polyurethane group, and seven patients in the polyurethane group had skin adverse events. Total costs of the trial interventions did not differ significantly between groups.Interpretation: Current dressing and securement methods are commonly associated with PIVC failure and poor durability, with simultaneous use of multiple products commonly required. Cost is currently the main factor that determines product choice. Innovations to achieve effective, durable dressings and securements, and randomised controlled trials assessing their effectiveness are urgently needed.Funding: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. [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: Research has identified high failure rates of peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) and varied flushing practices.Methods: This is a single-centre, pilot, non-masked, factorial randomised controlled trial. Participants were adults, with a PIVC of expected use ≥24 hours (n = 160), admitted to general medical or surgical wards of a tertiary referral hospital in Queensland (Australia). Patients were randomly allocated to one of four flush groups using manually prepared syringes and 0.9 % sodium chloride: 10 mL or 3 mL flush, every 24 or 6 hours. The primary endpoint was PIVC failure, a composite measure of occlusion, infiltration, accidental dislodgement and phlebitis.Results: PIVC average dwell was 3.1 days. PIVC failure rates per 1000 hours were not significantly different for the volume intervention (4.84 [3 mL] versus 7.44 [10 mL], p = 0.06, log-rank). PIVC failure rates per 1000 hours were also not significantly different for the frequency intervention (5.06 [24 hour] versus 7.34 [6 hour], p = 0.05, log-rank). Cox proportional hazard regression found neither the flushing nor frequency intervention, or their interaction (p = 0.21) to be significantly associated with PIVC failure. However, female gender (hazard ratio [HR] 2.2 [1.3-3.6], p < 0.01), insertion in hand/posterior wrist (HR 1.7 [1.0-2.7], p < 0.05) and the rate per day of PIVC access (combined flushes and medication pushes) (HR 1.2 [1.1-1.4], p < 0.01) significantly predicted PIVC failure.Conclusion: Neither increased flushing volume nor frequency significantly altered the risk of PIVC failure. Female gender, hand/posterior wrist placement and episodes of access (flushes and medication) may be more important. Larger, definitive trials are feasible and required.Trial Registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12615000025538 . Registered on 19 January 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Peripherally inserted central catheter tip placement at the cavoatrial junction is associated with reduced catheter-related deep vein thrombosis. Electrocardiographic tip confirmation purportedly improves accuracy of tip placement, but whether this approach can reduce deep vein thrombosis is unknown.Methods: Prospectively collected data from patients that received peripherally inserted central catheters at 52 Michigan hospitals were analyzed. The method used to confirm tip confirmation at insertion and deep vein thrombosis outcomes were extracted from medical records. Multivariate models (accounting for the clustered nature of the data) were fitted to assess the association between peripherally inserted central catheter-related deep vein thrombosis and method of tip confirmation (electrocardiographic vs radiographic imaging).Results: A total of 42,687 peripherally inserted central catheters (21,098 radiology vs 21,589 electrocardiographic) were included. Patients receiving electrocardiographic-confirmed peripherally inserted central catheters had fewer comorbidities compared with those that underwent placement via radiology. Overall, deep vein thrombosis occurred in 594 (1.3%) of all peripherally inserted central catheters. Larger catheter size (odds radio [OR] 1.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.90 per unit increase in gauge), history of deep vein thrombosis, and cancer were associated with increased risk of deep vein thrombosis (OR 2.00; 95% CI, 1.65-2.43 and OR 1.62; 95% CI, 1.16-2.26, respectively) using logistic regression. Following adjustment, electrocardiographic guidance was associated with a significant reduction in peripherally inserted central catheter-related deep vein thrombosis compared with radiographic imaging (OR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58-0.93; P = .0098).Conclusion: The use of electrocardiography to confirm peripherally inserted central catheter tip placement at the cavoatrial junction was associated with significantly fewer deep vein thrombosis events than radiographic imaging. Use of this approach for peripherally inserted central catheter insertion may help improve patient safety, particularly in high-risk patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]