In Vitro Evaluation of Fluid Reflux after Flushing Different Types of Needleless Connectors

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate fluid reflux, when disconnecting syringe, for different needleless connectors.

Materials

Nine connectors were tested; 540 measurements were carried out.

Results

The connectors tested showed very different performances, about reflux, on disconnection of the syringe used for flushing.

The calculated reflux volumes are: Max Zero^® - BD: 6.90 (±2.47) mm³; MicroClave Clear^® - ICU Medical: 6.14 (±1.46) mm³; Bionecteur^® - Vygon: 1.24(±0.73) mm³; Neutron^® - ICU Medical: 0.12 (±0.15) mm³; SmartSite^® Carefusion: 33.51 (±11.50) mm³; Safe Plus^® - Cremascoli: 23.54 (±3.56) mm³; NeutraClear^® - Cair: 9.36 (±1.87) mm³; NeutroX^® - Cair: 0.33 (±0.31) mm³; Dasa^® BTC: 2.38 (±1.67) mm³.

Differences between investigated devices were statistically significant (p<0.001).

Discussion

It is difficult to establish the best quality-price ratio for needleless connectors. It is important to consider several variable factors: continuous or discontinuous infusion, catheter type, usage environment and caliber of catheter used. It would therefore be useful to have an indication of the intraluminal space potentially affected by blood reflux in relation to a specific device.

Conclusions

Needleless connector is one of the main factors involved in keeping catheter patency. It is important to perform the best choice among the connectors available.

An empirical reflux measurement, relative to the needleless connector and the catheter in use, can be obtained using an 18G cannula.

Keywords

Blood Catheter Connector Needleless Occlusion Reflux

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Hadaway

, Richardson

Needleless connectors: a primer on terminology. J Infus Nurs. 2010; 33(1): 22–31.

O'Grady NP, Alexander M, Burns LA, et al; Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2011; 52(9): e162–e193.

Yébenes

J.C.

, Serra-Prat

Clinical use of disinfectable needle-free connectors. Am J Infect Control. 2008; 36(10): S175.e1-4.

Yassi

, McGill

M.L.

, Khokhar

J.B.

Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a needleless intravenous access system. Am J Infect Control. 1995; 23(2): 57–64.

Schilling

, Doellman

, Hutchinson

, Jacobs

B.R.

The impact of needleless connector device design on central venous catheter occlusion in children: a prospective, controlled trial. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2006; 30(2): 85–90.

Buchini

, Scarsini

, Montico

, Buzzetti

, Ronfani

, Decorti

Management of central venous catheters in pediatric oncohematology using 0.9% sodium chloride and positive-pressure-valve needleless connector. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2014; 18(4): 393–396.

Jasinsky

L.M.

, Wurster

Occlusion reduction and heparin elimination trial using an antireflux device on peripheral and central venous catheters. J Infus Nurs. 2009; 32(1): 33–39.

Hadaway

Needleless connectors for IV catheters. Am J Nurs. 2012; 112(11): 32–44, quiz 45.

Hadaway

Needleless connectors: improving practice, reducing risks. Journal of the Association for Vascular Access: JAVA. 2011; 16(1): 20–25.

10.

Hadaway

Technology of flushing vascular access devices. J Infus Nurs. 2006; 29(3): 137–145.

11.

Kalidi

, Kovacevich

, Lorelei

, Btaiche

Impact of the positive pressure valve on vascular access devices occlusion and bloodstream infections. Journal of the Association for Vascular Access: JAVA. 2008; 14(2): 84–91.

12.

Btaiche

I.F.

, Kovacevich

D.S.

, Khalidi

, Papke

L.F.

The effects of needleless connectors on catheter-related thrombotic occlusions. J Infus Nurs. 2011; 34(2): 89–96.

13.

Jarvis

W.R.

, Murphy

, Hall

K.K.

. Health care-associated bloodstream infections associated with negative- or positive-pressure or displacement mechanical valve needleless connectors. Clin Infect Dis. 2009; 49(12): 1821–1827.

14.

Btaiche

I.F.

, Kovacevich

D.S.

, Khalidi

, Papke

L.F.

The effects of needleless connectors on catheter-related bloodstream infections. Am J Infect Control. 2011; 39(4): 277–283.

15.

Macklin

The impact of IV connectors on clinical practice and patients outcomes Journal of the Association for Vascular Access. JAVA. 2010; 15(3): 126–139.

16.

Yébenes

J.C.

, Sauca

, Solsona

. Safety of positive-pressure valve connectors in arterial catheters inserted into critically ill patients. J Hosp Infect. 2008; 70(4): 341–345.

17.

Field

, McFarlane

, Cheng

A.C.

. Incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infection among patients with a needleless, mechanical valve-based intravenous connector in an Australian hematology-oncology unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007; 28(5): 610–613. Published online April 12, 2007.

18.

Rupp

M.E.

, Sholtz

L.A.

, Jourdan

D.R.

. Outbreak of bloodstream infection temporally associated with the use of an intravascular needleless valve. Clin Infect Dis. 2007; 44(11): 1408–1414.

19.

Chernecky

C.C.

, Macklin

, Jarvis

W.R.

, Joshua

T.V.

Comparison of central line-associated bloodstream infection rates when changing to a zero fluid displacement intravenous needleless connector in acute care settings. Am J Infect Control. 2014; 42(2): 200–202.

20.

Di Giacomo

Comparison of three peripherally-inserted central catheters: pilot study. Br J Nurs. 2009; 18(1): 8–16.

21.

Ong

C.K.

, Venkatesh

S.K.

, Lau

G.B.

, Wang

S.C.

Prospective randomized comparative evaluation of proximal valve polyurethane and distal valve silicone peripherally inserted central catheters. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2010; 21(8): 1191–1196.

22.

Infusion Nursing Society. Infusion therapy - standards of practice 2016. J Infusion Nursing. 2016; 39(Suppl 1): S1–S156. Available from: http://gavecelt.it/nuovo/sites/default/files/uploads/INS%20Standards%20of%20Practice%202016_0.pdf.Accessed April 20, 2016.

23.

Lyons

M.G.

, Phalen

A.G.

A randomized controlled comparison of flushing protocols in home care patients with peripherally inserted central catheters. J Infus Nurs. 2014; 37(4): 270–281.

24.

Bradford

N.K.

, Edwards

R.M.

, Chan

R.J.

Heparin versus 0.9% sodium chloride intermittent flushing for the prevention of occlusion in long term central venous catheters in infants and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; 11: CD010996.

25.

Keogh

, Marsh

, Higgins

, Davies

, Rickard

A time and motion study of peripheral venous catheter flushing practice using manually prepared and prefilled flush syringes. J Infus Nurs. 2014; 37(2): 96–101.