Search

Background: Despite pervasive need for peripheral intravenous catheters, insertion is often difficult, and approximately two thirds fail prematurely. Midline catheters are an alternative long peripheral catheter, inserted in the upper arm, ideal for patients with difficult access. Aim: The aim of this study is to test feasibility of the protocol and compare the efficacy and safety of midline catheters to peripheral intravenous catheters. Design: A parallel‐group, pilot randomized controlled trial of adult medical/surgical hospitalized patients, from a single Australian referral hospital. Methods: Participants with difficult vascular access (≤2 palpable veins) and/or anticipated ≥5 days of peripherally compatible intravenous therapy were recruited between May 2019 and March 2020. Participants were randomized to (1) peripheral intravenous catheter or (2) midline catheter. Primary feasibility outcome measured eligibility, recruitment, protocol adherence, retention and attrition. Primary clinical outcomes measured device insertion failure and post‐insertion failure. Results: In total, n = 143 participants (71 peripheral intravenous catheters and 72 midline catheters) were recruited; n = 139 were analysed. Most feasibility criteria were met. Peripheral intravenous catheters had shorter functional dwell time, with higher incidence of post‐insertion failure compared to midline catheters. Conclusion: Midline catheters appear to be superior for patients with difficult vascular access or receiving prolonged intravenous therapy; a large, multi‐centre trial to confirm findings is feasible. Summary statement: What is already known about this topic? Peripheral intravenous catheters have endemically high incidence of complications.Midline catheters have been proposed as an alternative peripheral intravenous device, following recent advancements in catheter material and design.Few studies have compared safety and efficacy of contemporary midline catheters with peripheral intravenous catheters. What this paper adds: Midline catheters had a longer functional dwell time and lower incidence of post insertion‐failure, compared to peripheral intravenous catheters.Midline catheters appear safe; however, inserter skill appears to have critical influence on insertion success. The implications of this paper: This study established the feasibility and importance of a large, multicentre, randomized controlled trial to confirm findings.Future research should also focus on financial impacts, including cost‐efficiency.Policy makers should consider training specialist inserters to place midline catheters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To identify modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors for peripheral intravenous catheter (PIV) failure among patients requiring intravenous treatment for oncology and haematology conditions. Methods: A single-centre prospective cohort study was conducted between October 2017 and February 2019. Adult in-patients requiring a PIV for therapy were prospectively recruited from two cancer units at a tertiary hospital in Queensland, Australia. The primary outcome was a composite of complications leading to PIV failure (local and bloodstream infection; occlusion; infiltration/extravasation; leakage; dislodgement; and/or phlebitis). Secondary outcomes were (i) PIV dwell time; (ii) insertion and (iii) failure of a CVAD; (iv) adverse events; (v) length of hospital stay. Outcomes were investigated using Bayesian multivariable linear regression modelling and survival analysis. Results: Of 200 participants, 396 PIVs were included. PIV failure incidence was 34.9%; the most common failure type was occlusion/infiltration (n = 74, 18.7%), then dislodgement (n = 33, 8.3%), and phlebitis (n = 30, 7.6%). While several patient and treatment risk factors were significant in univariable modelling, in the final multivariable model, only the use of non-sterile tape (external to the primary dressing) was significantly associated with decreased PIV dislodgement (hazard ratio 0.06, 95% confidence interval 0.01, 0.48; p = 0.008). Conclusion: PIV failure rates among patients receiving cancer treatment are high, the sequelae of which may include delayed treatment and infection. Larger studies on risk factors and interventions to prevent PIV failure in this population are needed; however, the use of secondary securements (such as non-sterile tape) to provide further securement to the primary PIV dressing is particularly important. Trial registration: Study methods were registered prospectively with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry on the 27th March 2017 (ACTRN12617000438358); https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=372191&isReview=true [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this study was to quantify the utilisation of vascular access devices in Queensland public hospitals and their associated cost. Methods: Devices were broadly classified into peripheral intravenous catheters, central venous catheters and arterial lines. The number of catheters used was obtained from a central procurement department at Queensland Health and validated using Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) claims and/or hospital data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare for the same period. Resources consumed included equipment and staff time required to insert and remove catheters. Equipment costs were valued using negotiated hospital prices, and staff time was valued at the fixed industrial award wages in Australia or relevant MBS fees. Device maintenance costs (e.g. dressings) and costs of treating complications were excluded. Results: Approximately 2.75 million vascular access devices were used in public hospitals in Queensland in 2016, at a total cost of A$59.14 million. This comprised a total equipment cost of around A$10.17 million and a total labour cost of A$48.85 million Conclusion: Vascular access is an important component of healthcare expenditure. The present study is the first to characterise and cost vascular access devices in Queensland. Further research is needed on the costs of maintaining device function and of treating complications associated with vascular access. What is known about the topic?: The cost of vascular access in Australia has previously been estimated from modelling, using various assumptions, or based on device utilisation in other countries. What does this paper add?: For the first time, device utilisation for vascular access in Queensland has been quantified and costed. Results were obtained from reliable sources and validated against other databases. What are the implications for practitioners?: Practitioners and managers may now provide accurate estimates about the cost of catheter failure, a potentially preventable problem that affects up to 50% of all catheters placed. Attaching costs to such failure may also stimulate research into how to reduce the problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PVCs) are essential invasive devices, with 2 billion PVCs sold each year. The comparative efficacy of expert versus generalist inserter models for successful PVC insertion and subsequent reliable vascular access is unknown.Methods: A single-centre, parallel-group, pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) of 138 medical/surgical patients was conducted in a large tertiary hospital in Australia to compare PVC insertion by (1) a vascular access specialist (VAS) or (2) any nursing or medical clinician (generalist model). The primary outcome was the feasibility of a larger RCT as established by predetermined criteria (eligibility, recruitment, retention, protocol adherence). Secondary outcomes were PVC failure: phlebitis, infiltration/extravasation, occlusion, accidental removal or partial dislodgement, local infection or catheter-related bloodstream infection; dwell time; insertion success, insertion attempts; patient satisfaction; and procedural cost-effectiveness.Results: Feasibility outcomes were achieved: 92% of screened patients were eligible; two patients refused participation; there was no attrition or missing outcome data. PVC failure was higher with generalists (27/50, 54%) than with VASs (33/69, 48%) (228 versus 217 per 1000 PVC days; incidence rate ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.61-1.80). There were no local or PVC-related infections in either group. All PVCs (n = 69) were successfully inserted in the VAS group. In the generalist group, 19 (28%) patients did not have a PVC inserted. There were inadequate data available for the cost-effectiveness analysis, but the mean insertion procedure time was 2 min in the VAS group and 11 min in the generalist group. Overall satisfaction with the PVC was measured on an 11-point scale (0 = not satisfied and 10 = satisfied) and was higher in the VAS group (n = 43; median = 7) compared to the generalist group (n = 20; median = 4.5). The multivariable model identified medical diagnosis and bed-bound status as being significantly associated with higher PVC failure, and securement with additional non-sterile tape was significantly associated with lower PVC failure.Conclusion: This pilot trial confirmed the feasibility and need for a large, multicentre RCT to test these PVC insertion models.Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616001675415 . Registered on 6 December 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

• Approximately 50% of all peripheral venous catheters (PVCs) are used to administer intravenous antibiotics. • Subsequently, 11% and 19% of PVCs lead to irritation and vessel injury, respectively. • Flucloxacillin, lincomycin and vancomycin were confirmed to increase the risk of PVC failure. • This study newly identified cefepime and ceftazidime as significant risk factors for PVC failure. • Methods to improve antibiotic delivery are necessary to improve patient care. Peripheral venous catheters (PVCs) are used to administer antimicrobials, but many fail prior to completion of therapy. While some antimicrobials are known to increase the PVC failure rate, risk profiles for many are unclear. To synthesize data from prospective PVC studies conducted between 2013 and 2019 to determine associations between common antimicrobials and PVC failure. A secondary analysis was undertaken of seven randomized controlled trials and two prospective cohort studies from three quaternary hospitals (two adult and one paediatric) in Australia between 2013 and 2019. The primary outcome was PVC failure due to vessel injury (occlusion, infiltration or extravasation) or irritation (pain or phlebitis). Associations between antimicrobial use and PVC failure were explored using multi-variable Cox regression. In total, 5252 PVCs (4478 patients) were analysed; vessel injury and irritations occurred in 19% and 11% of all PVCs, respectively. Vessel injury was significantly associated with cefepime hydrochloride [hazard ratio (HR) 2.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.44–4.34], ceftazidime pentahydrate (HR 1.91, 95% CI 1.11–3.31), flucloxacillin sodium (HR 1.84, 95% CI 1.45–2.33), lincomycin hydrochloride (HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.10–2.52) and vancomycin hydrochloride (HR 1.73, 95% CI 1.25–2.40). Irritation was significantly associated with flucloxacillin sodium (HR 2.58, 95% CI 1.96–3.40). This study identified several antimicrobials associated with increased PVC failure, including some that were already known to be associated and some that had not been identified previously. Research is needed urgently to determine superior modes of delivery (e.g. dilution, infusion time, device type) that may prevent PVC failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Phlebitis is an important complication occurring in patients with peripheral intravascular catheters (PIVCs). The risk factors for phlebitis in the intensive care unit (ICU) was examined. Methods: A secondary analysis of a prospective multicenter cohort study was conducted, involving 23 ICUs in Japan—the AMOR–VENUS study. Consecutive patients aged ≥ 18 years admitted to the ICU with newly inserted PIVCs after ICU admission were enrolled. Characteristics of the ICU, patients, PIVCs, and the drugs administered via PIVCs were recorded. A marginal Cox regression model was used to identify the risk factors associated with phlebitis. Results: A total of 2741 consecutive patients from 23 ICUs were reviewed for eligibility, resulting in 1359 patients and 3429 PIVCs being included in the analysis population. The median dwell time was 46.2 h (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.3–82.9). Phlebitis occurred in 9.1% (95% CI, 8.2–10.1%) of catheters (3.5 cases/100 catheter days). The multivariate analysis revealed that the only factors that increased the risk of developing phlebitis were drugs administered intravenously. This study included 26 drugs, and 4 were associated with increased phlebitis: nicardipine (HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.29–2.66), noradrenaline (HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.40–4.20), amiodarone (HR, 3.67; 95% CI, 1.75–7.71) and levetiracetam (HR, 5.65; 95% CI, 2.80–11.4). Alternatively, factors significantly associated with a reduced risk of phlebitis were: standardized drug administration measures in the ICU (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.17–0.76), 30≤ BMI (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.20–0.95), catheter inserted by a doctor as nurse reference (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32–0.94), and upper arm insertion site as forearm reference (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32–0.85). The nitroglycerin was associated with a reduced phlebitis risk (HR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.05–0.92). Conclusion: Various factors are involved in the development of phlebitis caused by PIVCs in critically ill patients, including institutional, patient, catheter, and drug-induced factors, indicating the need for appropriate device selection or models of care in the ICU. Trial registration: UMIN-CTR, the Japanese clinical trial registry (registration number: UMIN000028019, July 1, 2017). [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]

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: 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]

Objective: To understand healthcare worker and patient experience with peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) insertion in patients with difficult intravenous access (DIVA) including the use of ultrasound (US). Methods: Descriptive study using 1-on-1 semi-structured interviews conducted between August 2020 and January 2021. Purposeful sampling was used to recruit healthcare practitioners (HCPs) and patients with DIVA who had PIVC experience. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Interview data were than mapped to the implementation theory Behaviour Change Wheel to inform implementation strategies. Results: In total 78 interviews (13 patients; 65 HCPs) were completed with respondents from metropolitan (60%), regional (25%) and rural/remote (15%) settings across Australia. Thematic analysis revealed 4 major themes: i) Harmful patient experiences persist, with patient insights not leveraged to effect change; ii) 'Escalation' is just a word on the front lines; iii) Heightened risk of insertion failure without resources and training; and iv) Paving the way forward–'measures need to be in place to prevent failed insertion attempts. Themes were mapped to the behaviour change wheel and implementation strategies developed, these included: staff education, e-health record for DIVA identification, DIVA standard of care and DIVA guidelines to support escalation and ultrasound use. Conclusion(s): DIVA patients continue to have poor healthcare experiences with PIVC insertion. There is poor standardisation of DIVA assessment, escalation, US use and clinician education across hospitals. Quality, safety, and education improvement opportunities exist to improve the patient with DIVA experience and prevent traumatic insertions. We identified a number of implementation strategies to support future ultrasound and DIVA pathway implementation. [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]

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 intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are ubiquitous medical devices, crucial to providing essential fluids and drugs. However, post-insertion PIVC failure occurs frequently, likely due to inconsistent maintenance practice such as flushing. The aim of this implementation study was to evaluate the impact a multifaceted intervention centred on short PIVC maintenance had on patient outcomes.Methods: This single-centre, incomplete, stepped wedge, cluster randomised trial with an implementation period was undertaken at a quaternary hospital in Queensland, Australia. Eligible patients were from general medical and surgical wards, aged ≥ 18 years, and requiring a PIVC for > 24 h. Wards were the unit of randomisation and allocation was concealed until the time of crossover to the implementation phase. Patients, clinicians, and researchers were not masked but infections were adjudicated by a physician masked to allocation. Practice during the control period was standard care (variable practice with manually prepared flushes of 0.9% sodium chloride). The intervention group received education reinforcing practice guidelines (including administration with manufacturer-prepared pre-filled flush syringes). The primary outcome was all-cause PIVC failure (as a composite of occlusion, infiltration, dislodgement, phlebitis, and primary bloodstream or local infection). Analysis was by intention-to-treat.Results: Between July 2016 and February 2017, 619 patients from 9 clusters (wards) were enrolled (control n = 306, intervention n = 313), with 617 patients comprising the intention-to-treat population. PIVC failure was 91 (30%) in the control and 69 (22%) in the intervention group (risk difference - 8%, 95% CI - 14 to - 1, p = 0.032). Total costs were lower in the intervention group. No serious adverse events related to study intervention occurred.Conclusions: This study demonstrated the effectiveness of post-insertion PIVC flushing according to recommended guidelines. Evidence-based education, surveillance and products for post-insertion PIVC management are vital to improve patient outcomes.Trial Registration: Trial submitted for registration on 25 January 2016. Approved and retrospectively registered on 4 August 2016. Ref: ACTRN12616001035415 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]