Routine resite of peripheral intravenous devices every 3 days did not reduce complications compared with clinically indicated resite: a randomised controlled trial
- PMID: 20831782
- PMCID: PMC2944158
- DOI: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-53
Routine resite of peripheral intravenous devices every 3 days did not reduce complications compared with clinically indicated resite: a randomised controlled trial
Abstract
Background: Peripheral intravenous device (IVD) complications were traditionally thought to be reduced by limiting dwell time. Current recommendations are to resite IVDs by 96 hours with the exception of children and patients with poor veins. Recent evidence suggests routine resite is unnecessary, at least if devices are inserted by a specialised IV team. The aim of this study was to compare the impact of peripheral IVD 'routine resite' with 'removal on clinical indication' on IVD complications in a general hospital without an IV team.
Methods: A randomised, controlled trial was conducted in a regional teaching hospital. After ethics approval, 362 patients (603 IVDs) were randomised to have IVDs replaced on clinical indication (185 patients) or routine change every 3 days (177 patients). IVDs were inserted and managed by the general hospital medical and nursing staff; there was no IV team. The primary endpoint was a composite of IVD complications: phlebitis, infiltration, occlusion, accidental removal, local infection, and device-related bloodstream infection.
Results: IVD complication rates were 68 per 1,000 IVD days (clinically indicated) and 66 per 1,000 IVD days (routine replacement) (P = 0.86; HR 1.03; 95% CI, 0.74-1.43). Time to first complication per patient did not differ between groups (KM with log rank, P = 0.53). There were no local infections or IVD-related bloodstream infections in either group. IV therapy duration did not differ between groups (P = 0.22), but more (P = 0.004) IVDs were placed per patient in the routine replacement (mean, 1.8) than the clinical indication group (mean, 1.5), with significantly higher hospital costs per patient (P < 0.001).
Conclusions: Resite on clinical indication would allow one in two patients to have a single cannula per course of IV treatment, as opposed to one in five patients managed with routine resite; overall complication rates appear similar. Clinically indicated resite would achieve savings in equipment, staff time and patient discomfort. There is growing evidence to support the extended use of peripheral IVDs with removal only on clinical indication.
Registration number: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) Number ACTRN12608000421336.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Routine versus clinically indicated replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters: a randomised controlled equivalence trial.Lancet. 2012 Sep 22;380(9847):1066-74. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61082-4. Lancet. 2012. PMID: 22998716 Clinical Trial.
-
The RESPECT trial-Replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters according to clinical reasons or every 96 hours: A randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial.Int J Nurs Stud. 2020 Jul;107:103504. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.103504. Epub 2020 Jan 11. Int J Nurs Stud. 2020. PMID: 32334176 Clinical Trial.
-
Routine replacement versus replacement as clinical indicated of peripheral intravenous catheters: A multisite randomised controlled trial.J Clin Nurs. 2022 Oct;31(19-20):2959-2970. doi: 10.1111/jocn.16129. Epub 2021 Nov 14. J Clin Nurs. 2022. PMID: 34779070 Clinical Trial.
-
The Effectiveness of Clinically Indicated Replacement of Peripheral Intravenous Catheters: An Evidence Review With Implications for Clinical Practice.Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2015 Aug;12(4):187-98. doi: 10.1111/wvn.12102. Epub 2015 Aug 4. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2015. PMID: 26243585 Review.
-
Effectiveness of insertion and maintenance bundles in preventing peripheral intravenous catheter-related complications and bloodstream infection in hospital patients: A systematic review.Infect Dis Health. 2019 Aug;24(3):152-168. doi: 10.1016/j.idh.2019.03.001. Epub 2019 Apr 18. Infect Dis Health. 2019. PMID: 31005606
Cited by
-
Risk factors for complications in peripheral intravenous catheters in adults: secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2016 Nov 28;24:e2833. doi: 10.1590/1518-8345.1457.2833. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2016. PMID: 27901218 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Devices and dressings to secure peripheral venous catheters to prevent complications.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jun 12;2015(6):CD011070. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011070.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015. PMID: 26068958 Free PMC article.
-
Comparison of Routine Replacement With Clinically Indicated Replacement of Peripheral Intravenous Catheters.JAMA Intern Med. 2021 Nov 1;181(11):1471-1478. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.5345. JAMA Intern Med. 2021. PMID: 34533191 Free PMC article.
-
Local complications of intravenous access - an often underestimated entity.J Family Med Prim Care. 2020 Dec 31;9(12):6073-6077. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1649_20. eCollection 2020 Dec. J Family Med Prim Care. 2020. PMID: 33681043 Free PMC article.
-
A novel integrated dressing to secure peripheral intravenous catheters in an adult acute hospital: a pilot randomised controlled trial.Trials. 2018 Oct 30;19(1):596. doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2985-9. Trials. 2018. PMID: 30376880 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
References
-
- Maki DG, Ringer M. Risk factors for infusion-related phlebitis with small peripheral venous catheters. Ann Intern Med. 1991;114(10):845–854. - PubMed
-
- Monreal M, Oller B, Rodriguez N, Vega J, Torres T, Valero P, Mach G, Ruiz AE, Roca J. Infusion phlebitis in post-operative patients: when and why. Haemostasis. 1999;29(5):247–254. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical