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]

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]

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]

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 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]

Rationale, aims and objectives Many peripheral intravenous catheter ( PIVC) infusion phlebitis scales and definitions are used internationally, although no existing scale has demonstrated comprehensive reliability and validity. We examined inter-rater agreement between registered nurses on signs, symptoms and scales commonly used in phlebitis assessment. Methods Seven PIVC-associated phlebitis signs/symptoms (pain, tenderness, swelling, erythema, palpable venous cord, purulent discharge and warmth) were observed daily by two raters (a research nurse and registered nurse). These data were modelled into phlebitis scores using 10 different tools. Proportions of agreement (e.g. positive, negative), observed and expected agreements, Cohen's kappa, the maximum achievable kappa, prevalence- and bias-adjusted kappa were calculated. Results Two hundred ten patients were recruited across three hospitals, with 247 sets of paired observations undertaken. The second rater was blinded to the first's findings. The Catney and Rittenberg scales were the most sensitive (phlebitis in >20% of observations), whereas the Curran, Lanbeck and Rickard scales were the most restrictive (≤2% phlebitis). Only tenderness and the Catney (one of pain, tenderness, erythema or palpable cord) and Rittenberg scales (one of erythema, swelling, tenderness or pain) had acceptable (more than two-thirds, 66.7%) levels of inter-rater agreement. Conclusions Inter-rater agreement for phlebitis assessment signs/symptoms and scales is low. This likely contributes to the high degree of variability in phlebitis rates in literature. We recommend further research into assessment of infrequent signs/symptoms and the Catney or Rittenberg scales. New approaches to evaluating vein irritation that are valid, reliable and based on their ability to predict complications need exploration. [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]

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]

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: 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 document the incidence of postinfusion phlebitis and to investigate associated risk factors. Design. Analysis of existing data set from a large randomized controlled trial, the primary purpose of which was to compare routine peripheral intravascular catheter changes with changing catheters only on clinical indication. Participants and Setting. Patients admitted to a large, acute general hospital in Queensland, Australia, and who required a peripheral intravenous catheter. Results. 5,907 PIVCs from 3,283 patients were studied. Postinfusion phlebitis at 48 hours was diagnosed in 59 (1.8%) patients. Fifteen (25.4%) of these patients had phlebitis at removal and also at 48 hours after removal. When data were analyzed per catheter, the rate was lower, 62/5907 (1.1%). The only variable associated with postinfusion phlebitis was placement of the catheter in the emergency room (P=0.03). Conclusion. Although not a common occurrence, postinfusion phlebitis may be problematic so it is important for health care staff to provide patients with information about what to look for after an intravascular device has been removed. This trial is registered with ACTRN12608000445370. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A review is presented of the article "Routine Versus Clinically Indicated Replacement of Peripheral Intravenous Catheters: A Randomised Controlled Equivalence Trial" by C. M. Rickard, J. Webster, M. C. Wallis et al., which appeared originally in a 2012 issue of "The Lancet".