Intravascular catheter migration: A cross-sectional and health-economic comparison of adhesive and subcutaneous engineered stabilisation devices for intravascular device securement

Abstract

The Infusional Services Team at a large cancer centre in Belfast, Northern Ireland, performed a cross-sectional analysis of two catheter securement technologies to address an area of frequent, but underestimated concern – peripherally inserted central catheter migration and dislodgement. Healthcare practitioner and patient feedback, along with economic impact, were assessed. The costs associated with catheter replacement during the adhesive device group study period were calculated using an average cost per insertion, based on material costs required for the procedure. Other factors were the replacement cost of the adhesive engineered securement device with each dressing change. In the subcutaneous securement group, the material costs were adjusted for use of the subcutaneous device as it remained in situ for the duration of the catheters’ dwell time. This review found that subcutaneous securement offers both patient and facilities a safe, effective and economical alternative for device securement with patients who are unable to tolerate or have successful securement with adhesive securement devices. The use of subcutaneous devices provided for reduced risks for peripherally inserted central catheters in terms of dislodgement, migration or malposition, alleviating the potential risks to develop catheter-related thrombosis and device-related infection.

Keywords

Securement migration dislodgement peripherally inserted central catheter catheter-related bloodstream infection patient satisfaction

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

National Institute for Health Care Excellence. SecurAcath for securing percutaneous catheters (Medical Technologies Guidance. MTG34). National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), 2017, https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/mtg34

Hitchcock

Savine

Medical adhesive-related skin injury: VADS and dressings. Br J Nurs 2015; 24(14): S13.

Macklin

Blackburn

PL.

Central venous catheter securement: using the healthcare and technology synergy model to take a closer look. J Assoc Vasc Access 2015; 20(1): 45–50.

Zhao

Wei

, et al. Medical adhesive–related skin injury prevalence at the peripherally inserted central catheter insertion site: a cross-sectional, multiple-center study. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2018; 45(1): 22–25.

Cadman

Lawrance

Fitzsimmons

, et al. To clot or not to clot? That is the question in central venous catheters. Clin Radiol 2004; 59(4): 349–355.

Lamperti

Pittiruti

Central venous catheter tip position: another point of view. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2015; 32(1): 3–4.

Spencer

TR.

Repositioning of central venous access devices using a high-flow flush technique-a clinical practice and cost review. J Vasc Access 2017; 18(5): 419–425.

Gorski

Hadaway

Hagle

, et al. Infusion nursing standards of practice. J Infus Nurs 2016; 39(Suppl. 1): S1–S159.

Yamamoto

Solomon

Soulen

, et al. Sutureless securement device reduces complications of peripherally inserted central venous catheters. J Vasc Intervent Radiol 2002; 13(1): 77–81.

10.

Spencer

TR.

Securing vascular access devices. Am Nurse Today 2018; 13(9): 29–31.

11.

Goossens

Grumiaux

Janssens

, et al. SecurAstaP trial: securement with SecurAcath versus StatLock for peripherally inserted central catheters, a randomised open trial. BMJ Open 2018; 8(2): e016058.

12.

Zerla

Canelli

Cerne

, et al. Evaluating safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of PICC securement by subcutaneously anchored stabilization device. J Vasc Access 2017; 18(3): 238–242.

13.

Egan

Siskin

Weinmann

IV , et al. A prospective postmarket study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a new peripherally inserted central catheter stabilization system. J Infus Nurs 2013; 36(3): 181–188.

14.

Safdar

Maki

DG.

The pathogenesis of catheter-related bloodstream infection with noncuffed short-term central venous catheters. Intensive Care Med 2004; 30(1): 62–67.

15.

Timsit

Rupp

Bouza

, et al. A state of the art review on optimal practices to prevent, recognize, and manage complications associated with intravascular devices in the critically ill. Intensive Care Med 2018; 44(6): 742–759.

16.

Ullman

Cooke

Mitchell

, et al. Dressing and securement for central venous access devices (CVADs): a Cochrane systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud 2016; 59: 177–196.

17.

Macmillan

Pennington

Summers

, et al. SecurAcath for securing peripherally inserted central catheters: a NICE medical technology guidance. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2018; 16(6): 779–791.

18.

Pittiruti

Scoppettuolo

Dolcetti

, et al. Clinical experience of a subcutaneously anchored sutureless system for securing central venous catheters. Br J Nurs 2019; 28(2): S4–S14.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB