Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T16:25:59.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Routine Replacement versus Clinical Monitoring of Peripheral Intravenous Catheters in a Regional Hospital in the Home Program A Randomized Controlled Trial

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Patricia Van Donk ,
Claire M. Rickard ,
Matthew R. McGrail  and
Glenn Doolan
Patricia Van Donk*
Affiliation:
Latrobe Regional Hospital, Traralgon, Monash University, Gippsland Campus, Victoria
Claire M. Rickard
Affiliation:
Research Centre for Clinical and Community Practice Innovation, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia
Matthew R. McGrail
Affiliation:
School of Rural Health, Monash University, Gippsland Campus, Victoria
Glenn Doolan
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Sciences, Monash University, Gippsland Campus, Victoria
*
Latrobe Regional Hospital, Princes Hwy, Traralgon, Victoria 3844, Australia (TVanDonk@lrh.com.au)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This randomized, controlled trial involving 316 patients in the home setting found no difference in the rate of phlebitis and/or occlusion among patients for whom a peripheral intravenous catheter was routinely resited at 72-96 hours and those for whom it was replaced only on clinical indication (76.8 events per 1,000 device-days vs 87.3 events per 1,000 device-days; P = .71). There were no bloodstream infections.

Type
Concise Communication
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 30 , Issue 9 , September 2009 , pp. 915 - 917
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.O'Grady, NP, Alexander, M, Dellinger, EP, et al.Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. MMWR Recomm Rep 2002;51(RR-10):1–29.Google Scholar
2.Schultz, AA, Gallant, P. Evidence-based quality improvement project for determining appropriate discontinuation of peripheral IV cannulas. Evid Based Nurs 2005;8:8.Google Scholar
3.Lai, KK. Safety of prolonging peripheral cannula and IV tubing use from 72 to 96 hours. Am J Infect Control 1998;26:66–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Webster, J, Clarke, S, Paterson, D, et al.Routine care of peripheral intravenous catheters versus clinically indicated replacement: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2008;337:a339.Google Scholar
5.Webster, J, Lloyd, S, Hopkins, T, Osborne, S, Yaxley, M. Developing a research base for intravenous peripheral cannula resites (DRIP trial): a randomised controlled trial of hospital inpatients. Int J Nurs Stud 2007;44:664–671.Google Scholar
6.Maki, DG. Improving the safety of peripheral intravenous catheters: specialized teams could bring greater benefit than routine replacement. BMJ 2008;337:a630.Google Scholar
7.Maki, DG, Ringer, M. Risk factors for infusion-related phlebitis with small peripheral venous catheters. Ann Intern Med 1991;114:845–854.Google Scholar
8.Hirschmann, H, Fux, L, Podusel, J, et al; EURIDIKI (European Interdisciplinary Committee for Infection Prophylaxis). The influence of hand hygiene prior to insertion of peripheral venous catheters on the frequency of complications. J Hosp Inject 2001;49:199–203.Google Scholar
9.Martinez, JA, Fernandez, P, Rodriguez, E, et al.Intravenous cannulae: complications arising from their use and analysis of predisposing factors. Med Clin (Bare) 1994;103:89–93.Google ScholarPubMed
10.Kagel, EM, Rayan, GM. Intravenous catheter complications in the hand and forearm. J Trauma 2004;56:123–127.Google Scholar