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]

Peripheral intravenous catheters are the most frequently used invasive device in nursing practice, yet are commonly associated with complications. We performed a systematic review to determine the prevalence of peripheral intravenous catheter infection and all-cause failure. The Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched for observational studies and randomised controlled trials that reported peripheral intravenous catheter related infections or failure. The review was limited to English language and articles published from the year 2000. Pooled estimates were calculated with random-effects models. Meta-analysis of observation studies in epidemiology guidelines and the Cochrane process for randomised controlled trials were used to guide the review. Prospero registration number: CRD42022349956. Our search retrieved 34,725 studies. Of these, 41 observational studies and 28 randomised controlled trials (478,586 peripheral intravenous catheters) met inclusion criteria. The pooled proportion of catheter-associated bloodstream infections was 0.028 % (95 % confidence interval (CI): 0.009–0.081; 38 studies), or 4.40 catheter-associated bloodstream infections per 100,000 catheter-days (20 studies, 95 % CI: 3.47–5.58). Local infection was reported in 0.150 % of peripheral intravenous catheters (95 % CI: 0.047–0.479, 30 studies) with an incidence rate of 65.1 per 100,000 catheter-days (16 studies; 95 % CI: 49.2–86.2). All cause peripheral intravenous catheter failure before treatment completion occurred in 36.4 % of catheters (95 % CI: 31.7–41.3, 53 studies) with an overall incidence rate of 4.42 per 100 catheter days (78,891 catheter days; 19 studies; 95 % CI: 4.27–4.57). Peripheral intravenous catheter failure is a significant worldwide problem, affecting one in three catheters. Per peripheral intravenous catheter, infection occurrence was low, however, with over two billion catheters used globally each year, the absolute number of infections and associated burden remains high. Substantial and systemwide efforts are needed to address peripheral intravenous catheter infection and failure and the sequelae of treatment disruption, increased health costs and poor patient outcomes. [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]

Peripheral intravenous catheters are an essential medical device which are prone to complications and failure. Identify patient, provider and device risk factors associated with all-cause peripheral intravenous catheter failure as well as individual complications: phlebitis, infiltration/occlusion, and dislodgement to improve patient outcomes. Secondary analysis of twelve prospective studies performed between 2008 and 2020. Australian metropolitan and regional hospitals including one paediatric hospital. Participants were from medical, surgical, haematology, and oncology units. Multilevel mixed-effects parametric survival regression was used to identify factors associated with all-cause peripheral intravenous catheter failure, phlebitis, occlusion/infiltration, and dislodgement. We studied patient (e.g., age, gender), device (e.g., gauge), and provider (e.g., inserting clinician) variables. Stepwise regression involved clinically and p <0.20 significant variables entered into the multivariable model. Results were expressed as hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI); p <0.01 was considered statistically significant. Of 11,830 peripheral intravenous catheters (8,200 participants) failure occurred in 36% (n = 4,263). Occlusion/infiltration incidence was 23% (n = 2,767), phlebitis 12% (n = 1,421), and dislodgement 7% (n = 779) of catheters. Patient factors significantly associated with failure and complications were: female gender (phlebitis; (HR 1.98, 95% CI 1.72–2.27), (infiltration/occlusion; HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.33–1.58), (failure; HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.26–1.46); and each year increase in age (phlebitis; 0.99 HR, 95% CI 0.98–0.99), (failure; 0.99 HR, 95% CI 0.99–0.99). The strongest provider risk factor was intravenous antibiotics (infiltration/occlusion; HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.27–1.53), (phlebitis; HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.18–1.56), (failure; HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.17–1.36). Catheters inserted by vascular access teams were less likely to dislodge (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.42–0.67). Device risk factors most associated with all-cause failure were wrist/hand (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.23–1.46), antecubital fossa peripheral intravenous catheters (HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.16–1.44) and 22/24 gauge (HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.12–1.45) catheters. Factors identified, including the protective aspect of vascular access team insertion, and high catheter failure associated with intravenous antibiotic administration, will allow targeted updates of peripheral intravenous catheter guidelines and models of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]