Limits...
Routine care of peripheral intravenous catheters versus clinically indicated replacement: randomised controlled trial.

Webster J, Clarke S, Paterson D, Hutton A, van Dyk S, Gale C, Hopkins T - BMJ (2008)

Bottom Line: To compare routine replacement of intravenous peripheral catheters with replacement only when clinically indicated.When the analysis was based on failure per 1000 device days (number of failures divided by number of days catheterised, divided by 1000), no difference could be detected between the groups (relative risk 0.98, 0.78 to 1.24).Infusion related costs were higher in the control group (mean $A41.02; pound19.71; euro24.80; $38.55) than intervention group ($A36.40).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Centre for Clinical Nursing, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Qld 4029, Australia. joan_webster@health.qld.gov.au

ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare routine replacement of intravenous peripheral catheters with replacement only when clinically indicated.

Design: Randomised controlled trial.

Setting: Tertiary hospital in Australia.

Participants: 755 medical and surgical patients: 379 allocated to catheter replacement only when clinically indicated and 376 allocated to routine care of catheter (control group).

Main outcome measure: A composite measure of catheter failure resulting from phlebitis or infiltration.

Results: Catheters were removed because of phlebitis or infiltration from 123 of 376 (33%) patients in the control group compared with 143 of 379 (38%) patients in the intervention group; the difference was not significant (relative risk 1.15, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.40). When the analysis was based on failure per 1000 device days (number of failures divided by number of days catheterised, divided by 1000), no difference could be detected between the groups (relative risk 0.98, 0.78 to 1.24). Infusion related costs were higher in the control group (mean $A41.02; pound19.71; euro24.80; $38.55) than intervention group ($A36.40). The rate of phlebitis in both groups was low (4% in intervention group, 3% in control group).

Conclusion: Replacing peripheral intravenous catheters when clinically indicated has no effect on the incidence of failure, based on a composite measure of phlebitis or infiltration. Larger trials are needed to test this finding using phlebitis alone as a more clinically meaningful outcome.

Registration number: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12605000147684.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Flow of participants through trial
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2483870&req=5

fig1: Flow of participants through trial

Mentions: Between February 2006 and June 2007, 755 of 1620 potentially eligible participants (46.6%) were included in the trial. Almost one quarter of potentially eligible patients were excluded because of an altered mental state. These were generally patients who were confused or had some form of dementia or delirium. Reasons for exclusion are shown in the figure.


Routine care of peripheral intravenous catheters versus clinically indicated replacement: randomised controlled trial.

Webster J, Clarke S, Paterson D, Hutton A, van Dyk S, Gale C, Hopkins T - BMJ (2008)

Flow of participants through trial
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2483870&req=5

fig1: Flow of participants through trial
Mentions: Between February 2006 and June 2007, 755 of 1620 potentially eligible participants (46.6%) were included in the trial. Almost one quarter of potentially eligible patients were excluded because of an altered mental state. These were generally patients who were confused or had some form of dementia or delirium. Reasons for exclusion are shown in the figure.

Bottom Line: To compare routine replacement of intravenous peripheral catheters with replacement only when clinically indicated.When the analysis was based on failure per 1000 device days (number of failures divided by number of days catheterised, divided by 1000), no difference could be detected between the groups (relative risk 0.98, 0.78 to 1.24).Infusion related costs were higher in the control group (mean $A41.02; pound19.71; euro24.80; $38.55) than intervention group ($A36.40).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Centre for Clinical Nursing, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Qld 4029, Australia. joan_webster@health.qld.gov.au

ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare routine replacement of intravenous peripheral catheters with replacement only when clinically indicated.

Design: Randomised controlled trial.

Setting: Tertiary hospital in Australia.

Participants: 755 medical and surgical patients: 379 allocated to catheter replacement only when clinically indicated and 376 allocated to routine care of catheter (control group).

Main outcome measure: A composite measure of catheter failure resulting from phlebitis or infiltration.

Results: Catheters were removed because of phlebitis or infiltration from 123 of 376 (33%) patients in the control group compared with 143 of 379 (38%) patients in the intervention group; the difference was not significant (relative risk 1.15, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.40). When the analysis was based on failure per 1000 device days (number of failures divided by number of days catheterised, divided by 1000), no difference could be detected between the groups (relative risk 0.98, 0.78 to 1.24). Infusion related costs were higher in the control group (mean $A41.02; pound19.71; euro24.80; $38.55) than intervention group ($A36.40). The rate of phlebitis in both groups was low (4% in intervention group, 3% in control group).

Conclusion: Replacing peripheral intravenous catheters when clinically indicated has no effect on the incidence of failure, based on a composite measure of phlebitis or infiltration. Larger trials are needed to test this finding using phlebitis alone as a more clinically meaningful outcome.

Registration number: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12605000147684.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus