Securement Methods for Peripheral Venous Catheters to Prevent Failure: A Randomised Controlled Pilot Trial

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the effectiveness of four securement methods to prevent peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) failure.

Methods

A single-centre, four-arm, randomised, controlled, non-blinded, superiority pilot trial was conducted in a tertiary referral hospital in Queensland (Australia), between November 2012 and January 2013. Adult patients, with a PIVC expected to remain in situ for ≥24 hours and admitted to general medical or surgical wards, were randomly allocated to standard polyurethane dressing (control, SPU), tissue adhesive (TA) with an SPU, bordered polyurethane dressing (BPU) or sutureless securement device (SSD) with an SPU, experimental groups. The primary endpoint was PIVC failure, defined as premature device removal before the end of therapy because of pain, blockage, leaking, accidental removal and local or catheter-related bloodstream infection.

Results

PIVCs were used for an average of 2.6 days across all study groups (n = 85). Catheter failure was lowest in the TA group (3/21, 14%) and highest in the control group (8/21, 38%), with BPU and SSD failure at 5/20 (25%) and 5/23 (22%), respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio of catheter failure was lowest in the TA group (0.50, 95% CI: 0.13-1.98), and then the BPU (0.52, 95% CI: 0.15-1.78) and SSD (0.61, 95% CI: 0.20-1.91) groups. No patient was suspected of a local or catheter-related bloodstream infection.

Conclusions

Current SPU dressings alone do not prevent many cases of PIVC failure. TA appears promising as an innovative solution, but may not be suitable for all patients. A larger Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)-funded trial has commenced.

Keywords

Intravenous Occlusive dressings Randomised controlled trial Securement device Tissue adhesives Vascular access devices

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bolton

Improving peripheral cannulation practice at an NHS Trust. Br J Nurs. 2010; 19 (21): 1346, 1348-50.

Rickard

C.M.

, McCann

, Munnings

, McGrail

M.R.

Routine resite of peripheral intravenous devices every 3 days did not reduce complications compared with clinically indicated resite: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Med. 2010; 8 (1): 53.

Rickard

C.M.

, Webster

, Wallis

M.C.

Routine versus clinically indicated replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters: a randomised controlled equivalence trial. Lancet. 2012; 380 (9847): 1066–1074.

Hoffmann

K.K.

, Weber

D.J.

, Samsa

G.P.

, Rutala

W.A.

Transparent polyurethane film as an intravenous catheter dressing. A meta-analysis of the infection risks. JAMA. 1992; 267 (15): 2072–2076.

Webster

, Gillies

, O'Riordan

, Sherriff

K.L.

, Rickard

C.M.

Gauze and tape and transparent polyurethane dressings for central venous catheters. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; (11): CD003827.

Schears

G.J.

Summary of product trials for 10, 164 patients: comparing an intravenous stabilizing device to tape. J Infus Nurs. 2006; 29 (4): 225–231.

Bausone-Gazda

, Lefaiver

C.A.

, Walters

S.A.

A randomized controlled trial to compare the complications of 2 peripheral intravenous catheter-stabilization systems. J Infus Nurs. 2010; 33 (6): 371–384.

Callaghan

, Copnell

, Johnston

Comparison of two methods of peripheral intravenous cannula securement in the pediatric setting. J Infus Nurs. 2002; 25 (4): 256–264.

Wilkinson

J.N.

, Fitz-Henry

Securing epidural catheters with Histoacryl glue. Anaesthesia. 2008; 63 (3): 324.

10.

Wilkinson

J.N.

, Sheikh

, Jayamaha

Tissue adhesive as an alternative to sutures for securing central venous catheters. Anaesthesia. 2007; 62 (9): 969–970.

11.

Wilkinson

J.N.

, Chikhani

, Mortimer

, Gill

S.J.

The antimicrobial effect of Histoacryl skin adhesive. Anaesthesia. 2008; 63 (12): 1382–1384.

12.

Simonova

, Rickard

C.M.

, Dunster

K.R.

, Smyth

D.J.

, McMillan

, Fraser

J.F.

Cyanoacrylate tissue adhesives—effective securement technique for intravascular catheters: in vitro testing of safety and feasibility. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2012; 40 (3): 460–466.

13.

Hertzog

M.A.

Considerations in determining sample size for pilot studies. Res Nurs Health. 2008; 31 (2): 180–191.

14.

Julious

S.A.

Sample size of 12 per group rule of thumb for a pilot study. Pharm Stat. 2005; 4 (4): 287–291.

15.

O'Grady

N.P.

, Alexander

, Burns

L.A.

Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011: 1–83.

16.

INS. Infusion Nurses Society. J Infus Nurs. 2011; 34(1S): 1–110.

17.

Tuffaha

H.W.

, Rickard

C.M.

, Webster

Cost-effectiveness analysis of clinically indicated versus routine replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2014; 12 (1): 51–58.

18.

Stranz

, Kastango

ESRMF

. A review of pH and osmolarity. Int J Pharm Compd. 2002; 6 (3): 216–220.

19.

Forni

, D'Alessandro

, Gambino

[Effectiveness of the transparent sterile dressing vs standard to fix the peripheral venous catheter (PVC) on the incidence of phlebitis. A randomized controlled trial]. Assist Inferm Ric. 2012; 31 (2): 63–69.