Search

Aim: To synthesise evidence related to medical adhesive tapes and supplementary securement products for peripheral intravenous catheters in adults, to prevent complications and device failure. Design: Integrative review informed by Whittemore and Knafl and reported in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 statement. Data sources. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, EMBASE/MEDLINE and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health were searched from 2000–21 September 2020. Review Methods. Studies enrolling hospitalised participants >16 years with peripheral intravenous catheters secured by medical adhesive tapes, or supplementary products (bandage, splint and sutureless securement device), were eligible. Quality appraisal was performed using Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklists. Results: Nineteen studies met criteria, including 43,683 peripheral intravenous catheters. Quality appraisal identified high or unclear risk of bias in 58% of studies. Nonsterile tape was the most common intervention tested (14 studies), alone or in multiproduct combinations. Nonsterile tape directly over insertion sites was associated with increased PIVC failure and complications. Sutureless securement devices potentially reduce failure and complications. Multiproduct combinations were very common. Practice recommendations regarding other tapes and secondary securement products are challenging, due to conflicting, or lack of, evidence. Conclusion: Tapes and secondary securement product evidence are limited, and over half of the studies are of low methodological quality. This review found nonsterile tape was associated with increased failure and complications; multiproduct dressing and securement bundles were prevalent; and significant evidence gaps exist particularly regarding bandages and splints. The results provide nurses with evidence of medical adhesive tapes and supplementary product effectiveness for peripheral intravenous catheter securement, and future research directions to reduce unacceptably high failure and complication rates. Larger rigorously conducted randomised controlled trials are needed to add to current evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Copyright of Vascular Access is the property of Canadian Vascular Access Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

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]

Aims: The aim of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to summarize and quantify peripheral intravenous catheter‐related complications. Design: This systematic review is reported by means of the Cochrane process for randomized controlled trials and the Meta‐analysis of Observation Studies in Epidemiology for cohort studies. Data sources: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, CINAHL and EMBASE databases, clinical trial registries such as ClinicalTrials.gov and the reference list of included studies were searched from 2000 ‐April 2019. Review Methods: Using a purpose designed data extraction tool, two authors independently identified studies for full review, data extraction and quality assessment. Dichotomous outcomes were pooled after Freeman–Tukey double arcsine transformation using random‐effects meta‐analysis; estimates of heterogeneity were taken from inverse‐variance fixed‐effect models. Results: Seventy observational studies and 33 randomized controlled trials were included (76,977 catheters). Peripheral intravenous catheter‐related complications were as follows: phlebitis (with definition) 19.3%, phlebitis (without definition) 4.5%, infiltration/extravasation 13.7%, occlusion 8%, leakage 7.3%, pain 6.4% and dislodgement 6.0%. Subgroup analysis found infiltration/extravasation for emergency department‐inserted catheters was significantly higher (25.2%; p =.022) than for those inserted in other departments and pain was significantly higher (p <.001) in countries with developing economies compared with developed economies. Conclusion: Peripheral intravenous catheter complications are unacceptably common worldwide. This review suggests substantial and multi‐specialty efforts are needed to address the sequalae associated with complications. The potential benefits for patients and health services are considerable if complications are reduced. Impact: Peripheral intravenous complications interrupt important treatment which can be distressing for patients and result in longer hospital stays with increased healthcare costs. This review found phlebitis and infiltration are the most prevalent reason for catheter failure. These results provide nurses with a strong evidence base for the development of effective interventions for practice which are vital for preventing poor outcomes for patients with peripheral intravenous catheters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims and objectives: To explore nurses' decision‐making regarding intravenous administration set replacement for vascular access device infusions in paediatric and adult clinical settings. Background: Intravenous administration sets are routinely replaced at regular intervals in clinical practice with the goal of preventing catheter‐related bloodstream infection; however, emerging evidence is challenging traditional hang‐time durations. Nurses' perceptions and contextual factors affecting decision‐making for administration set replacement have not been assessed previously. Design: Qualitative study using focus groups with contextualism methodology and inductive analysis. Method: During November–December 2016, eight semi‐structured focus groups were conducted with 38 nurses at two metropolitan hospitals in Queensland, Australia. Interviews were audio‐recorded and transcribed. Two authors independently reviewed transcripts and extracted significant statements using Braun and Clarke's 7‐step method of thematic analysis. The COREQ checklist provided a framework to report the study methods, context, findings, analysis and interpretation. Results: Five key themes emerged from the analysis: (a) infection prevention, (b) physical safety, (c) patient preference, (d) clinical knowledge and beliefs, and (e) workload. Administration set replacement can be a complex task, particularly when patients have multiple infusions and incompatible medications. Nurses drew on perceptions of patient preference, as well as previous experience, knowledge of peer experts and local policies, to aid their decisions. Conclusions: Nurses use clinical reasoning to balance patient safety and preferences with competing workplace demands when undertaking administration set replacement. Nurses rely on previous experience, hospital and medication manufacturer policies, and peer experts to guide their practice. Relevance to clinical practice: Nurses at times deviate from clinical guidelines in the interests of patient acuity, nurses' experience and workload. The findings of this study indicate nurses also balance considerations of patient preference and safety with these competing demands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT Background Aim Design Methods Results Conclusion Impact Reporting Method Patient or Public Contribution An evidence and consensus‐based instrument is needed to classify central venous access device‐associated skin impairments.The aim of this study was to design and evaluate the central venous access device‐associated skin impairment classification tool.A two‐phase modified Delphi study.This two‐phase study consisted of a literature review, followed by the development and validation of a classification instrument, by experts in the fields of central venous access devices and wound management (Phase 1). The instrument was tested (Phase 2) using 38 clinical photographs of a range of relevant skin impairments by the same expert panel. The expert panel consisted of registered nurses who were clinical researchers (n = 4) and clinical experts (n = 3) with an average of 24 years of nursing and research experience and 11 years of experience in wound management. Measures to assess preliminary content validity and inter‐rater reliability were used.The instrument consists of five overarching aetiological classifications, including contact dermatitis, mechanical injury, infection, pressure injury and complex clinical presentation, with 14 associated subcategory diagnoses (e.g., allergic dermatitis, skin tear and local infection), with definitions and signs and symptoms. High agreement was achieved for preliminary scale content validity and item content validity (I‐CVI = 1). Inter‐rater reliability of aetiologies was high. The overall inter‐rater reliability of individual definitions and signs and symptoms had excellent agreement.The development and preliminary validation of this classification tool provide a common language to guide the classification and assessment of central venous access device‐associated skin impairment.The comprehensive and validated classification tool will promote accurate identification of central venous access device‐associated skin impairment by establishing a common language for healthcare providers. The availability of this tool can reduce clinical uncertainty, instances of misdiagnosis and the potential for mismanagement. Consequently, it will play a pivotal role in guiding clinical decision‐making, ultimately enhancing the quality of treatment and improving patient outcomes.The Guidance on Conducting and Reporting Delphi Studies (CREDES) was adhered to.No patient or public contribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Up to 85% of hospital in-patients will require some form of vascular access device to deliver essential fluids, drug therapy, nutrition and blood products, or facilitate sampling. The failure rate of these devices is unacceptably high, with 20–69% of peripheral intravenous catheters and 15–66% of central venous catheters failing due to occlusion, depending on the device, setting and population. A range of strategies have been developed to maintain device patency, including intermittent flushing. However, there is limited evidence informing flushing practice and little is known about the current flushing practices. Objective The aim of the study was to improve our understanding of current flushing practices for vascular access devices through a survey of practice. Method A cross-sectional survey of nurses and midwives working in the State of Queensland, Australia was conducted using a 25-item electronic survey that was distributed via the local union membership database. Results A total of 1178 surveys were completed and analysed, with n = 1068 reporting peripheral device flushing and n = 584 reporting central device flushing. The majority of respondents were registered nurses (55%) caring for adult patients (63%). A large proportion of respondents (72% for peripheral, 742/1028; 80% for central, 451/566) were aware of their facility's policy for vascular access device flushing. Most nurses reported using sodium chloride 0.9% for flushing both peripheral (96%, 987/1028) and central devices (75%, 423/566). Some concentration of heparin saline was used by 25% of those flushing central devices. A 10-mL syringe was used by most respondents for flushing; however, 24% of respondents used smaller syringes in the peripheral device group. Use of prefilled syringes (either commercially prepared sterile or prefilled in the workplace) was limited to 10% and 11% respectively for each group. The frequency of flushing varied widely, with the most common response being pro re nata (23% peripheral and 21% central), or 6 hourly (23% peripheral and 22% central). Approximately half of respondents stated that there was no medical order or documentation for either peripheral or central device flushing. Conclusions Flushing practices for vascular access device flushing appear to vary widely. Specific areas of practice that warrant further investigation include questions about the efficacy of heparin for central device flushing, increasing adherence to the recommended 10 mL diameter syringe use, increased use of prefilled flush syringes, identifying and standardising optimal volumes and frequency of flushing, and improving documentation of flush orders and administration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]