Clinically indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)

Background Centers for Disease Control Guidelines recommend replacement of peripheral intravenous (IV) catheters every 72 to 96 hours. Routine replacement is thought to reduce the risk of phlebitis and bacteraemia. Catheter insertion is an unpleasant experience for patients and replacement may be unnecessary if the catheter remains functional and there are no signs of inflammation. Costs associated with routine replacement may be considerable. Objectives To assess the effects of removing peripheral IV catheters when clinically indicated compared with removing and re-siting the catheter routinely.

Challenging the distal-to-proximal cannulation technique for administration of anti-cancer therapies : a prospective cohort study

Background: Distal-to-proximal technique has been recommended for anti-cancer therapy administration. There is no evidence to suggest that a 24-hour delay of treatment is necessary for patients with a previous uncomplicated venous puncture proximal to the administration site. Objectives: This study aims to identify if the practice of 24-hour delay between a venous puncture and subsequent cannulation for anti-cancer therapies at a distal site is necessary for preventing extravasation. Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted with 72 outpatients receiving anti-cancer therapy via an administration site distal to at least one previous uncomplicated venous puncture on the same arm in a tertiary cancer centre in Australia. Participants were interviewed and assessed at baseline data before treatment and on day 7 for incidence of extravasation/phlebitis. Results: Of 72 participants with 99 occasions of treatment, there was one incident of infiltration (possible extravasation) at the venous puncture site proximal to the administration site and two incidents of phlebitis at the administration site. Conclusions: A 24 hour delay is unnecessary if an alternative vein can be accessed for anti-cancer therapy after a proximal venous puncture. Implications for practice: Extravasation can occur at a venous puncture site proximal to an administration site in the same vein. However, the nurse can administer anti-cancer therapy at a distal site if the nurse can confidently determine the vein of choice is not in any way connected to the previous puncture site through visual inspection and palpation.

Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters

BACKGROUND: US Centers for Disease Control guidelines recommend replacement of peripheral intravenous (IV) catheters no more frequently than every 72 to 96 hours. Routine replacement is thought to reduce the risk of phlebitis and bloodstream infection. Catheter insertion is an unpleasant experience for patients and replacement may be unnecessary if the catheter remains functional and there are no signs of inflammation. Costs associated with routine replacement may be considerable. This is an update of a review first published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of removing peripheral IV catheters when clinically indicated compared with removing and re-siting the catheter routinely. SEARCH METHODS: For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases (PVD) Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the PVD Specialised Register (December 2012) and CENTRAL (2012, Issue 11). We also searched MEDLINE (last searched October 2012) and clinical trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that compared routine removal of peripheral IV catheters with removal only when clinically indicated in hospitalised or community dwelling patients receiving continuous or intermittent infusions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials with a total of 4895 patients were included in the review. Catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) was assessed in five trials (4806 patients). There was no significant between group difference in the CRBSI rate (clinically-indicated 1/2365; routine change 2/2441). The risk ratio (RR) was 0.61 but the confidence interval (CI) was wide, creating uncertainty around the estimate (95% CI 0.08 to 4.68; P = 0.64). No difference in phlebitis rates was found whether catheters were changed according to clinical indications or routinely (clinically-indicated 186/2365; 3-day change 166/2441; RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.39). This result was unaffected by whether infusion through the catheter was continuous or intermittent. We also analysed the data by number of device days and again no differences between groups were observed (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.27; P = 0.75). One trial assessed all-cause bloodstream infection. There was no difference in this outcome between the two groups (clinically-indicated 4/1593 (0.02%); routine change 9/1690 (0.05%); P = 0.21). Cannulation costs were lower by approximately AUD 7.00 in the clinically-indicated group (mean difference (MD) -6.96, 95% CI -9.05 to -4.86; P ≤ 0.00001). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The review found no evidence to support changing catheters every 72 to 96 hours. Consequently, healthcare organisations may consider changing to a policy whereby catheters are changed only if clinically indicated. This would provide significant cost savings and would spare patients the unnecessary pain of routine re-sites in the absence of clinical indications. To minimise peripheral catheter-related complications, the insertion site should be inspected at each shift change and the catheter removed if signs of inflammation, infiltration, or blockage are present. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of removing peripheral IV catheters when clinically indicated compared with removing and re-siting the catheter routinely. SEARCH METHODS: For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases (PVD) Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the PVD Specialised Register (December 2012) and CENTRAL (2012, Issue 11). We also searched MEDLINE (last searched October 2012) and clinical trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that compared routine removal of peripheral IV catheters with removal only when clinically indicated in hospitalised or community dwelling patients receiving continuous or intermittent infusions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials with a total of 4895 patients were included in the review. Catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) was assessed in five trials (4806 patients). There was no significant between group difference in the CRBSI rate (clinically-indicated 1/2365; routine change 2/2441). The risk ratio (RR) was 0.61 but the confidence interval (CI) was wide, creating uncertainty around the estimate (95% CI 0.08 to 4.68; P = 0.64). No difference in phlebitis rates was found whether catheters were changed according to clinical indications or routinely (clinically-indicated 186/2365; 3-day change 166/2441; RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.39). This result was unaffected by whether infusion through the catheter was continuous or intermittent. We also analysed the data by number of device days and again no differences between groups were observed (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.27; P = 0.75). One trial assessed all-cause bloodstream infection. There was no difference in this outcome between the two groups (clinically-indicated 4/1593 (0.02%); routine change 9/1690 (0.05%); P = 0.21). Cannulation costs were lower by approximately AUD 7.00 in the clinically-indicated group (mean difference (MD) -6.96, 95% CI -9.05 to -4.86; P ≤ 0.00001). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The review found no evidence to support changing catheters every 72 to 96 hours. Consequently, healthcare organisations may consider changing to a policy whereby catheters are changed only if clinically indicated. This would provide significant cost savings and would spare patients the unnecessary pain of routine re-sites in the absence of clinical indications. To minimise peripheral catheter-related complications, the insertion site should be inspected at each shift change and the catheter removed if signs of inflammation, infiltration, or blockage are present.

A phase II study of the modulation of 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid with high-dose infusional hydroxyurea in metastatic colorectal carcinoma

Background: Hydroxyurea (HU), an inhibitor of ribonucleotide reductase, may potentiate the activity of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and folinic acid (FA) by reducing the deoxyribonucleotide pool available for DNA synthesis and repair. However as HU may inhibit the formation of 5-fluoro-2-deoxyuridine-5- monophosphate (FdUMP), one of the principal active metabolites of 5-FU, the scheduling of HU may be critical. In vitro experiments suggest that administration of HU following 5-FU, maintaining the concentration in the region of I mM for six or more hours, significantly enhances the efficacy of 5-FU. Patients and methods: 5-FU/FA was given as follows: days 1 and 2 - FA 250 mg/m 2 (max. 350 mg) over two hours followed by 5-FU 400 mg/m 2 by intravenous bolus (ivb) over 15 minutes and subsequently 5-FU 400 mg/m 2 infusion (ivi) over 22 hours. HU was administered on day 3 immediately after the 5-FU with 3 g ivb over 15 minutes followed by 12 g ivi over 12 hours. Results: Thirty patients were entered into the study. Median survival was nine months (range 1-51 + months). There were eight partial responses (28%, 95% CI: 13%-47%). The median duration of response was 6.5 (range 4-9 months). Grade 3-4 toxicities included neutropenia (grade 3 in eight patients and grade 4 in five), anaemia (grade 3 in one patient) and diarrhoea (grade 3 in two patients). Neutropenia was associated with pyrexia in two patients. Phlebitis at the infusion site occurred in five patients. The treatment was complicated by pulmonary embolism in one patient and deep venous thrombosis in another. Conclusion: HU administered in this schedule is well tolerated. Based on these results and those of other phase II studies, a randomised phase III study of 5-FU, FA and HU versus 5-FU and FA using the standard de Gramont schedule is recommended.

Simvastatin - from cholesterol to venous ulcers?

It is estimated that up to three per 1,000 of the Australian adult population are affected by leg ulcers. Venous ulcers are the most common cause of ulceration in the lower extremities, accounting for approximately 80-85% of leg ulcers. These debilitating, and often painful ulcers recur frequently and can affect people of all ages, though the risk increases dramatically with age (approximately 99% of those with venous ulcers in Australia are over 65 years of age). Other risk factors include a family history of leg ulceration, varicose veins, venous disease, phlebitis, deep vein thrombosis, congestive heart failure, obesity, immobility, and previous leg injury. The chronic and recurring nature of venous ulcers, in addition to reduced quality of life for the patient, and ongoing costs of care place a significant burden of disease on the patient, and health system...

Revision bibliográfica. Cuidados del catéter periférico

[ES]Los cateterismos venosos periféricos son los dispositivos que con mayor frecuencia se emplean en el acceso vascular para pacientes que se encuentran ingresados en unidades hospitalarias. Estos catéteres son reemplazados sistemáticamente cada tres o cuatro días para tratar de prevenir la flebitis como refleja la guía de Center for Disease control and prevention (CDC) y por extensión, nuestro sistema de salud de Osakidetza. Sin embargo, la evidencia que apoya esta práctica no está del todo cimentada.El objetivo de esta revisión bibliográfica es evaluar la efectividad de esta práctica clínica tan integrada en la vida diaria de los profesionales de enfermería mediante la evaluación de la evidencia científica existente hasta el momento.Se realizo una búsqueda exhaustiva en diferentes bases de datos electrónicas desde Octubre de 2012 hasta Abril del año 2013. Se descargaron los textos completos de aquellos artículos que pudiesen ser potencialmente útiles en el estudio y se analizaron bajo los criterios de inclusión y selección. Los siete artículos seleccionados como válidos no demuestran que sea necesario sustituir de forma sistemática el catéter venoso periférico así como lo defiende la CDC. Debido a ello, se podría abolir esta práctica clínica que reduciría significativamente el dolor y las molestias que sufren los pacientes día a día, el tiempo que el personal de enfermería dedica en este tipo de prácticas, además de todo el coste sanitario que ello con lleva.

Preparo e administração de medicamentos intravenosos pela enfermagem: garantindo a segurança junto aos pacientes críticos

O objeto de estudo é o preparo e a administração de medicamentos pela enfermagem por via intravenosa. O objetivo geral foi discutir as consequências, para os pacientes, dos erros encontrados a partir do preparo e da administração de medicações de uso intravenoso pela enfermagem, no ambiente hospitalar. Os objetivos específicos foram determinar os grupos medicamentosos e os medicamentos envolvidos em erros; e identificar o tipo e frequência desses erros que ocorrem no preparo e administração de medicamentos intravenosos pela enfermagem. Trata-se de uma pesquisa com desenho transversal de natureza observacional, sem modelo de intervenção. Foi desenvolvida em um hospital público, da rede sentinela, do Rio de Janeiro onde foram observados técnicos de enfermagem preparando e administrando medicamentos intravenosos, em três setores: Unidade de Terapia Intensiva, Clínica Médica e Clínica Cirúrgica. Foram observadas 367 doses preparadas e 365 doses administradas, totalizado 732 doses, à luz de 14 categorias. Para cada dose observada havia somente duas possibilidades: certo ou errado. Com relação ao perfil das medicações, os grupos prevalentes foram os antimicrobianos com 176 doses (24,04%), seguidos dos antissecretores com 149 doses (20,36%) e analgésicos com 126 doses (17,21%). Anestésicos e anticonvulsivantes foram os menos observados. Todas as categorias foram divididas em dois grupos: os com potencial de dano para o paciente e os com potencial para alterar a resposta terapêutica do medicamento. Na etapa do preparo, no grupo com potencial de dano, as categorias foram: não troca as agulhas com 88,77% de erro; não desinfecção de ampolas (80,27%) e não faz limpeza de bancada (77,26%). Nas categorias não usa máscara e não identifica o medicamento, não foram encontrado erros. Para o grupo com potencial para alterar a resposta terapêutica, as categorias foram: hora errada (57,26%) e dose errada (6,58%). Na etapa da administração, no grupo com potencial de dano ao paciente, as categorias foram: não confere o medicamento com 96,73% de erro, não avalia flebite (87,47%), não avalia a permeabilidade (86,38%) e não confere o paciente (70,57%). Para o grupo com potencial para alterar a resposta terapêutica, a categoria hora errada apresentou 69,75% de erro; em dose errada e via errada não foi evidenciado erro. Percebeu-se que, nas duas etapas, o grupo prevalente foi o com potencial de dano paciente. Porém, no grupo com potencial para alterar o resultado terapêutico do medicamento, a categoria a hora errada foi a que, provavelmente, apresentou maiores prejuízos para o paciente. Considerando-se que o preparo e administração de medicamentos são umas das maiores responsabilidades da enfermagem e que os erros podem causar danos aos pacientes, sugere-se repensar o processo de trabalho da enfermagem e investir mais em questões que envolvam a segurança com a terapia medicamentosa.

Sjuksköterskans rutiner och omvårdnad kring perifera venkatetrar samthur komplikationer kan undvikas : -En litteraturstudie-

Syftet med litteraturstudien var att beskriva sjuksköterskans rutiner i samband med insättande och omvårdnad av perifera venkatetrar samt att beskriva observationer och åtgärder som sjuksköterskan gör för att undvika komplikationer. Artikelsökningen har skett i databaserna: Elin@Dalarna, Blackwell Synergy, EBSCO-host och Elsevier. De sökord som använts i olika kombinationer var: peripheral, intravenous, catheter/line/cannula, handhygiene, nurse, infections, phlebitis, routine och technique. Artiklarna skulle vara vetenskapligt skrivna på engelska och fick inte vara publicerade före år 1996. Sammanlagt inkluderades 20 artiklar i litteraturstudien varav 16 kvantitativa, 2 kvalitativa och 2 där båda designerna fanns representerade. Resultatet av litteraturstudien visade att de flesta sjuksköterskor inte tar hänsyn till hygieniska aspekter vid inläggning av en perifer venkateter (PVK) och det vanligaste stället för venpunktion var handryggen. Symtomen på komplikationer av en PVK var smärta, rodnad, ömhet, värmeökning, svullnad och hårda, stela vener. Flera sjuksköterskor bad patienterna att informera dem om de upptäckte rodnad, smärta eller svullnad kring PVK:erna, sjuksköterskorna drog dagligen handen över PVK:ernas bandage och frågade patienterna hur det kändes. De flesta sjuksköterskor spolade PVK:erna dagligen med natriumkloridlösning som en preventiv åtgärd. Den vanligaste komplikationen var tromboflebit. För att förebygga tromboflebit rekommenderas den minsta möjliga storleken på en PVK. Det förekommer olika riktlinjer världen över om hur lång tid en PVK bör vara placerad i en ven. Studierna visade olika resultat från 24 timmar upp till 92 timmar och däröver.

Treatment for superficial infusion thrombophlebitis of the upper extremity.

BACKGROUND Although superficial thrombophlebitis of the upper extremity represents a frequent complication of intravenous catheters inserted into the peripheral veins of the forearm or hand, no consensus exists on the optimal management of this condition in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES To summarise the evidence from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) concerning the efficacy and safety of (topical, oral or parenteral) medical therapy of superficial thrombophlebitis of the upper extremity. SEARCH METHODS The Cochrane Vascular Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched April 2015) and the Cochrane Register of Studies (2015, Issue 3). Clinical trials registries were searched up to April 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA RCTs comparing any (topical, oral or parenteral) medical treatment to no intervention or placebo, or comparing two different medical interventions (e.g. a different variant scheme or regimen of the same intervention or a different pharmacological type of treatment). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We extracted data on methodological quality, patient characteristics, interventions and outcomes, including improvement of signs and symptoms as the primary effectiveness outcome, and number of participants experiencing side effects of the study treatments as the primary safety outcome. MAIN RESULTS We identified 13 studies (917 participants). The evaluated treatment modalities consisted of a topical treatment (11 studies), an oral treatment (2 studies) and a parenteral treatment (2 studies). Seven studies used a placebo or no intervention control group, whereas all others also or solely compared active treatment groups. No study evaluated the effects of ice or the application of cold or hot bandages. Overall, the risk of bias in individual trials was moderate to high, although poor reporting hampered a full appreciation of the risk in most studies. The overall quality of the evidence for each of the outcomes varied from low to moderate mainly due to risk of bias and imprecision, with only single trials contributing to most comparisons. Data on primary outcomes improvement of signs and symptoms and side effects attributed to the study treatment could not be statistically pooled because of the between-study differences in comparisons, outcomes and type of instruments to measure outcomes.An array of topical treatments, such as heparinoid or diclofenac gels, improved pain compared to placebo or no intervention. Compared to placebo, oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reduced signs and symptoms intensity. Safety issues were reported sparsely and were not available for some interventions, such as notoginseny creams, parenteral low-molecular-weight heparin or defibrotide. Although several trials reported on adverse events with topical heparinoid creams, Essaven gel or phlebolan versus control, the trials were underpowered to adequately measure any differences between treatment modalities. Where reported, adverse events with topical treatments consisted mainly of local allergic reactions. Only one study of 15 participants assessed thrombus extension and symptomatic venous thromboembolism with either oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or low-molecular-weight heparin, and it reported no cases of either. No study reported on the development of suppurative phlebitis, catheter-related bloodstream infections or quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The evidence about the treatment of acute infusion superficial thrombophlebitis is limited and of low quality. Data appear too preliminary to assess the effectiveness and safety of topical treatments, systemic anticoagulation or oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Dance und Arnott über venenentzündung und deren folgen. Zwei abhandlungen aus dem französischen und englischen übers. und mit einer zugabe versehn,

Mode of access: Internet.

Obstruction and infiltration: a proposal of a quality indicator.

Background The quest for continuous improvement of the quality of provided care is the objective of nursing care. However, the insertion and permanence of a peripheral venous catheter has been associated to complications, thus making a systematic evaluation of the performance of professionals and the management of health services important. Objective: Analyse complications that caused removal of intravenous catheters. Methods A prospective study with 64 patients of a health service of Portugal, from July to September/2015. Included patients with age 18 years, with a peripheral venous catheter. Descriptive analysis using SPSS. Ethical requirements were met. Results Two hundred three (203) intravenous catheters, in 64 patients, most elderly (section 95.3 %), with mean age of 80 years were evaluated. The catheters remained inserted between one and 12 days (mean 2 days), 66 % of the devices were removed because of complications, such as: removal by the patient (17.7 %), obstruction (17.2 %), infiltration (14.8 %), phlebitis (9.4 %) and fluid exiting the insertion site (6.4 %). The prevalence of obstruction and infiltration per patient was respectively 36 % and 39 %. Conclusions Obstruction and infiltration were the complications of higher prevalence that led to the removal and reinsertion of a new peripheral venous catheter with the possibility of increased pain, infection and hospital costs. Faced with the risk of compromising patient safety and being able to contribute to the improvement of health care, we suggest the inclusion of obstruction and infiltration in the indicators of quality of care, in order to have systematic evaluation of results, (re)plan and implement preventive measures.