Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T04:28:13.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Study of a Needleless Intermittent Intravenous-Access System for Peripheral Infusions: Analysis of Staff, Patient, and Institutional Outcomes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Meryl H. Mendelson ,
Louise J. Short ,
Clyde B. Schechter ,
Burt R. Meyers ,
Margarita Rodriguez ,
Sandra Cohen ,
John Lozada ,
Marvalyn DeCambre  and
Shalom Z. Hirschman
Meryl H. Mendelson*
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, the Mount Sinai Hospital
Louise J. Short
Affiliation:
Department of Community Medicine, the Mount Sinai Hospital
Clyde B. Schechter
Affiliation:
Department of Community Medicine, the Mount Sinai Hospital
Burt R. Meyers
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, the Mount Sinai Hospital
Margarita Rodriguez
Affiliation:
Department of Nursing, the Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, New York
Sandra Cohen
Affiliation:
Department of Nursing, the Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, New York
John Lozada
Affiliation:
Mount Sinai School of Medicine of the City University of New York, New York
Marvalyn DeCambre
Affiliation:
Mount Sinai School of Medicine of the City University of New York, New York
Shalom Z. Hirschman
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, the Mount Sinai Hospital
*
Mount Sinai Medical Center, One Gustave L. Levy Place, Box 1090, New York, NY 10029
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

To assess the effect on staff- and patient-related complications of a needleless intermittent intravenous access system with a reflux valve for peripheral infusions.

DESIGN:

A 6-month cross-over clinical trial (phase I, 13 weeks; phase II, 12 weeks) of a needleless intermittent intravenous access system (NL; study device) compared to a conventional heparin-lock system (CHL, control device) was performed during 1991 on 16 medical and surgical units. A random selection of patients was assessed for local intravenous-site complications; all patients were assessed for the development of nosocomial bacteremia and device-related complications. Staff were assessed for percutaneous injuries and participated in completion of product evaluations. A cost analysis of the study compared to the control device was performed.

SETTING:

A 1,100-bed, teaching, referral medical center.

PATIENTS AND STAFF PARTICIPANTS:

594 patients during 602 patient admissions, comprising a random sample of all patients with a study or control device inserted within a previous 24-hour period on study and control units, were assessed for local complications. The 16 units included adult inpatient general medicine, surgical, and subspecialty units. Pediatrics, obstetrics-gynecology, and intensive-care units were excluded. All patients on study and control units were assessed for development of nosocomial bacteremia and device-related complications. All staff who utilized, manipulated, or may have been exposed to sharps on study and control units were assessed for percutaneous injuries. Nursing staff completed product evaluations.

INTERVENTION:

The study device, a needleless intermittent intravenous access system with a reflux valve, was compared to the control device, a conventional heparin lock, for peripheral infusions.

RESULTS:

During the study, 35 percutaneous injuries were reported. Eight injuries were CHL-related; no NL-related injuries were reported (P=.007). An evaluation of 602 patient admissions, 1,134 intermittent access devices, and 2,268 observed indwelling device days demonstrated more pain at the insertion site for CHL than NL; however, no differences in objective signs of phlebitis were noted. Of 773 episodes of positive blood cultures on study and control units, 6 (0.8%) were device-related (assessed by blinded investigator), with no difference between NL and CHL. Complications, including difficulty with infusion (P<.001) and disconnection of intravenous tubing from device (P<.001), were reported more frequently with CHL than with NL. Of nursing staff responding to a product evaluation survey, 95.2% preferred the study over control device. The projected annual incremental cost to our institution for hospitalwide implementation of NL for intermittent access for peripheral infusions was estimated at $82,845, or $230 per 1,000 patient days.

CONCLUSIONS:

A needleless intermittent intravenous access system with a reflux valve for peripheral infusions is effective in reducing percutaneous injuries to staff and is not associated with an increase in either insertion-site complications or nosocomial bacteremia. Institutions should consider these data, available institutional resources, and institution-specific data regarding the frequency and risk of intermittent access-device-related injuries and other types of sharps injuries in their staff when selecting the above or other safety devices.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 19 , Issue 6 , June 1998 , pp. 401 - 406
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1998

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.Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration Standard: 1910-1030. Bloodborne pathogens. Federal Register 12 6, 1991;56:64175–64182.Google Scholar
2.Benson, JS. Needlestick and other risks from hypodermic needles on secondary IV, administration sets—piggyback and intermittent IV. Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service, Food and Drug Administration. FDA Safety Alert, 04 16, 1992.Google Scholar
3.Mendelson, MH, Short, LJ, Dong, JU, Solomon, J, Meyer, BR, Hirschman, SZ. Analysis of sharps injuries at an 1,100 bed teaching medical center: priorities for injury reducing devices. In: Proceedings of 31st Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Chicago IL. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology; 1991.Google Scholar
4.Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Jane Doe, San Francisco General Hospital; Service Employees International Union, Holiday Inn, Union Square, January 16, 1990. Exhibit no. 214-F. OSHA transcript from informal public hearing. Proposed rule on occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens, pages 693–699.Google Scholar
5.Simmons, BP, Hooton, T, Wong, ES, Allen, JR. Guidelines for prevention of intravenous therapy related infections. Centers for Disease Control, 10 1981.Google Scholar
6.Chiarello, L, Nagin, D, Laufer, F. Pilot study of needlestick prevention devices: report to the legislature. Albany, NY: New York State Department of Health, 03 1992.Google Scholar
7.Gaukroger, PB, Roberts, JG, Manners, TA. Infusion thrombophlebitis: A prospective comparison of 645 vialon and teflon cannulae in anaesthetic and postoperative use. Anaesth Intensive Care 1988;16:265–271.Google Scholar
8.Mckee, JM, Shell, A, Warren, TA, Campbell, VP. Complications of intravenous therapy: a randomized prospective study—vialon vs teflon. J Intraven Nurs 1989;127(5):288–297.Google Scholar
9.Garner, JS, Jarvis, WR, Emori, TG, Horan, TC, Hughes, JM. CDC definition for nosocomial infections, 1988. Am J Infect Control 1988;16:128–140.Google Scholar
10.Short, LJ, Mendelson, MH, Rosa, M, Fallick, N, Hirschman, SZ. Economic implications of accidental needlestick injuries (NSI) at a large urban hospital. In: Proceedings of 31st Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Chicago, IL, Washington DC: American Society of Microbiology; 1991.Google Scholar
11.Juliett, E, Jagger, J, Chen, ML. Projected reduction of needlestick injuries by substitution of safer devices. In: A National Conference on Prevention of Device Mediated Bloodborne Infections, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Frontline Healthcare Workers conference. Washington, DC; 08 1992; Abstract E-510.Google Scholar
12.Mendelson, MH, Short, L. Godbold, J, Schechter, C, Wu, X, Meyers, BR, et al.Multivariate analysis of needlestick/sharps injuries (SIs)—10 New York State Hospitals, 1991. In: Proceedings of Third Annual Meeting of the Society for Hospital Epidemiology of America; Chicago, IL; 1993.Google Scholar
13.Gartner, K. Impact of a needleless intravenous system in a university hospital. Am J Infect Control 1992;20:75–79.Google Scholar
14.Skolnick, R, LaRocca, J, Barbra, D, Paicius, L. Evaluation and implementation of a needleless intravenous system: making needlesticks a needless problem. Am J Infect Control 1993;21:39–41.Google Scholar
15.Rutowski, J, Peterson, SL. A needleless intravenous system: an effective risk management strategy. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1993;14:226–227.Google Scholar
16.Orenstein, R, Reynolds, L, Karabaic, M, Lamb, A, Markowitz, SM, Wong, ES. Do protective devices prevent needlestick injuries among health care workers? Am J Infect Control 1995; 23:344–351.Google Scholar
17.Ippolito, G, Decari, G, Puro, V, Petrosillo, N, Arici, C, Bertucci, R, et al.Device-specific risk of needlestick injury in Italian health care workers. JAMA 1994;272:607–610.Google Scholar
18.Manian, FA, Meyer, L, Jenne, J. Puncture injuries due to needles removed from intravenous lines: should the source patient routinely be tested for blood borne infections? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1993;14:325–330.Google Scholar
19.Gerberding, JL. Needlestick prevention: new paradigms for research. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992;13:257–258.Google Scholar
20.Adams, KS, Zehrer, CL, Thomas, W. Comparison of a needleless system with conventional heparin locks. Am J Infect Control 1993;21:263–269.Google Scholar
21.Maki, DG, Stolz, S, McCormick, R, Spiegel, C. Possible association of a commercial needleless system with central venous catheter-related bac-teremia. In: Proceedings of 34th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Orlando Fla. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology; 10 4-7, 1994. Abstract J 201.Google Scholar
22.Danzig, LE, Short, LJ, Collins, K, Mahoney, M, Sepi, S, Blariel, L, et al.Bloodstream infections associated with a needleless intravenous infusions system in patients receiving home infusion therapy. JAMA 1995;273:1862–1864.Google Scholar
23.Kellerman, S, Shay, D, Howard, J, Feusner, J, Goes, C, Jarvis, W, et al.Bloodstream infections associated with needleless devices used for central versus catheter access in children receiving home health care. In: Proceedings of 35th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, San Francisco, CA. American Society for Microbiology; 09 17-20, 1995. Abstract J 11.Google Scholar
24.Chodoff, A, Pettis, A, Schoonmaker, D, Shelly, M. Polymicrobial gramnegative bacteremia associated with saline solution flush used with a needleless intravenous system. Am J Infect Control 1995; 23:357–363.Google Scholar
25.McDonald, LC, Banerjee, S, Jarvis, W. Central venous catheter (CVC)-associated bloodstream infections (BSI) in intensive care unit patients associated with needleless access devices. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1997;18:24.Google Scholar
26.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Evaluation of safety devices for preventing percutaneous injuries among health-care workers during phlebotomy procedures—Minneapolis—St. Paul, New York City, and San Francisco, 1993-1995. MMWR 1997;46:21–25.Google Scholar