Peripheral intravenous catheters (PVCs) are widely used vascular access devices for infusion therapy; however, they are associated with relatively high failure rates. This study aimed to identify the incidence, risk factors and medical costs of PVC-induced complications in adult hospitalised adult patients in China.
Methods:
An observational, prospective study on 1069 patients lasting 5 months was conducted at a tertiary teaching hospital.
Results:
Infiltration ranked first among PVC complications with an incidence of 17.8%, followed by occlusion (10.8%) and phlebitis (10.5%). Most complications in phlebitis (88.4%) and infiltration (93.7%) were Grade 1. Catheters left in for over 96 h did not show a higher incidence of complications. Patients from the surgical department were more susceptible to infiltration, phlebitis and occlusion. The 26 gauge (Ga) catheters decreased the risk of phlebitis and occlusion, whereas 24Ga catheters increased infiltration rates. Infusing irritant drugs increased phlebitis and infiltration rates. The presence of comorbidities and non-use of needleless connectors were associated with occlusion. Compared with forearm insertion, the risk of occlusion nearly doubled with the dorsum of the hand insertion and the risk of infiltration tripled with antecubital fossa insertion. Medical treatment costs for PVC complications ranged from 0.3 to 140.0 CNY.
Conclusions:
Infiltration is the most common PVC-related adverse event. Clinically-indicated instead of routine replacement of catheters is safe. More efforts are warranted to improve nurses’ adherence to recent guidelines in terms of insertion site selection and needleless connector utilisation to reduce medical costs associated with catheter replacement.
CorleyAUllmanAJMihalaG, et al. Peripheral intravenous catheter dressing and securement practice is associated with site complications and suboptimal dressing integrity: a secondary analysis of 40,637 catheters. Int J Nurs Stud2019; 100: 103409.
2.
SunHWangLGuanX, et al. A survey of the status of infusion therapy in tertiary hospitals in China. Chin J Nurs2014; 49: 1232–1237.
3.
HelmREKlausnerJDKlempererJD, et al. Accepted but unacceptable: peripheral IV catheter failure. J Infus Nurs2019; 42: 151–164.
4.
KeoghSFlynnJMarshN, et al. Varied flushing frequency and volume to prevent peripheral intravenous catheter failure: a pilot, factorial randomised controlled trial in adult medical–surgical hospital patients. Trials2016; 17: 348.
5.
TakahashiTMurayamaRAbe-DoiM, et al. Preventing peripheral intravenous catheter failure by reducing mechanical irritation. Sci Rep2020; 10: 1550.
6.
AnselBBoyceMEmbreeJL.Extending short peripheral catheter dwell time: a best practice discussion. J Infus Nurs2017; 40: 143–146.
7.
MarshNWebsterJLarsonE, et al. Observational study of peripheral intravenous catheter outcomes in adult hospitalized patients: a multivariable analysis of peripheral intravenous catheter failure. J Hosp Med2018; 13: 83–89.
8.
Rodriguez-CaleroMABlanco-MavillardIMorales-AsencioJM, et al. Defining risk factors associated with difficult peripheral venous cannulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart Lung2020; 49: 273–286.
9.
WallisMCMcGrailMWebsterJ, et al. Risk factors for peripheral intravenous catheter failure: multivariate analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2014; 35: 63–68.
10.
SiminDMilutinovicDTurkulovV, et al. Incidence, severity and risk factors of peripheral intravenous cannula-induced complications: an observational prospective study. J Clin Nurs2019; 28: 1585–1599.
11.
EliaFFerrariGMolinoP, et al. Standard-length catheters vs long catheters in ultrasound-guided peripheral vein cannulation. Am J Emerg Med2012; 30: 712–716.
12.
UslusoyEMeteS.Predisposing factors to phlebitis in patients with peripheral venous catheters: a descriptive study. J Am Acad Nurse Pract2008; 20: 172–180.
13.
WeiTLiXYYueZP, et al. Catheter dwell time and risk of catheter failure in adult patients with peripheral venous catheters. J Clin Nurs2019; 28: 4488–4495.
14.
DychterSSGoldDACarsonD, et al. Intravenous therapy: a review of complications and economic considerations of peripheral access. J Infus Nurs2012; 35: 84–91.
15.
CicoliniGManzoliLSimonettiV, et al. Phlebitis risk varies by peripheral venous catheter site and increases after 96 hours: a large multi-centre prospective study. J Adv Nurs2014; 70: 2539–2549.
16.
LvLZhangJ.The incidence and risk of infusion phlebitis with peripheral intravenous catheters: a meta-analysis. J Vasc Access2019; 21: 342–349.
17.
BragaLMParreiraPMOliveiraASS, et al. Phlebitis and infiltration: vascular trauma associated with the peripheral venous catheter. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem2018; 26: e3002.
18.
GorskiLAHadawayLHagleM, et al. 2016 Infusion therapy standards of practice. J Infus Nurs2016; 39: S1–S159.
19.
Intravenous Therapy Committee of Chinese Nursing Association. Expert consensus on venous catheter maintenance. Chin J Nurs2019; 54: 1334–1342.
20.
WebsterJMorrisHLRobinsonK, et al. Development and validation of a Vein Assessment Tool (VAT). Aust J Adv Nurs2007; 24: 5–7.
21.
GorskiLHadawayLHagleME, et al. Infusion Nurses Society. Infusion nursing: standards of practice. J Infus Nurs2006; 29: S1–S92.
22.
GrollDDaviesBMac DonaldJ.Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the phlebitis and infiltration scales for the assessment of complications of peripheral vascular access devices. J Infus Nurs2010; 33: 385–390.
GöranssonKForbergUJohanssonE, et al. Measurement of peripheral venous catheter-related phlebitis: a cross-sectional study. Lancet Haematol2017; 4: e424–e430.
25.
MilianiKTaravellaRThillardD, et al. Peripheral venous catheter-related adverse events: evaluation from a multicentre epidemiological study in France (the CATHEVAL project). PLoS One2017; 12: e0168637.
26.
ChangWPPengYX.Occurrence of phlebitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nurs Res2018; 67: 252–260.
27.
FangXJPengC.Application of 26G indwelling needle in preterm intravenous infusion. Chin J Prac Nurs2012; 28: 49–50.
28.
BahlAHijaziMChenNW, et al. Ultralong versus standard long peripheral intravenous catheters: a randomized controlled trial of ultrasonographically guided catheter survival. Ann Emerg Med2020; 76: 134–142.
29.
BahlAHuangBBrackneyA, et al. Standard long IV catheters versus extended dwell catheters: a randomized comparison of ultrasound-guided catheter survivalAm J Emerg Med2019; 37: 715–721.
30.
PandurangaduVATuckerJBrackneyAR, et al. Ultrasound-guided intravenous catheter survival impacted by amount of catheter residing in the vein. Emerg Med J2018; 35: 550–555.
31.
TanabeHTakahashiTMurayamaR, et al. Using ultrasonography for vessel diameter assessment to prevent infiltration. J Infus Nurs2016; 39: 105–111.
32.
JeongISJeonGRLeeMS, et al. Intravenous infiltration risk by catheter dwell time among hospitalized children. J Pediatr Nurs2017; 32: 47–51.
33.
HadawayL.Infiltration and extravasation: preventing a complication of IV catheterization. Am J Nurs2007; 107: 64–72.
34.
ZhaoYSunJHWeiY, et al. Observation on the effects of application of hydrocolloid dressing on the prevention of phlebitis caused by Oxaliplatin. Chin J Colorec Dis (Electronic Edition)2018; 7: 196–197.
35.
WuYNZhaoLDingKN, et al. Clinical observation on alternative use of venous indwelling needle and thin foam dressing sticking in the prevention for Amiodaronum-induced phlebitis. Western J Traditional Chinese Med2018; 31: 105–107.
36.
RosenthalVD.Clinical impact of needle-free connector design: a systematic review of literature. J Vasc Access2020; 21: 847–853.
37.
ElliSAbbruzzeseCCannizzoL, et al. In vitro evaluation of fluid reflux after flushing different types of needleless connectors. J Vasc Access2016; 17: 429–434.
38.
GuoXLZhangHYTianCY.The clinical application effect of connecting retaining needle of positive pressure. J Xinjiang Med University2015; 7: 927–929.
39.
RonenOShlomoFBen-AdivaG, et al. A prospective clinical trial to assess peripheral venous catheter-related phlebitis using needleless connectors in a surgery department. Am J Infect Control2017; 45: 1139–1142.
40.
MurayamaRTakahashiTTanabeH, et al. Exploring the causes of peripheral intravenous catheter failure based on shape of catheters removed from various insertion sites. Drug Discov Ther2018; 12: 170–177.
41.
WeiTTanYChenYY, et al. Survey of the use of peripheral venous catheters in adult patients. J Nurs Sci2018; 33: 6–9.
42.
JiCH. Research on fixation technique of transparent I.V. dressing for peripheral venous catheter. J Nurs Sci2013; 28: 8–9.
43.
TuffahaHWRickardCMWebsterJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of clinically indicated versus routine replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters. Appl Health Econ Health Policy2014; 12: 51–58.
44.
WebsterJOsborneSRickardCM, et al. Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2019; 1: CD007798.
45.
Ray-BarruelGPolitDFMurfieldJE, et al. Infusion phlebitis assessment measures: a systematic review. J Eval Clin Pract2014; 20: 191–202.
