ArticlesRoutine versus clinically indicated replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters: a randomised controlled equivalence trial
Introduction
Up to 70% of patients in acute care hospitals need a short peripheral intravenous catheter; about 200 million are used each year in the USA alone.1, 2 Intravenous catheters frequently fail before the end of treatment because of irritation of the vein (phlebitis) with symptoms including pain, swelling, redness, occlusion, and a palpable venous cord. Phlebitis necessitates catheter removal and replacement. Peripheral intravenous catheter-related bloodstream infection is a less frequent but serious complication, occuring in about 0·1% of intravenous catheters or 0·5 per 1000 catheter days.3
Intravenous catheters are often needed for a week or more, but have been recommended for regular removal and replacement with a new catheter in an attempt to decrease both phlebitis and infection. Replacement requires additional needlesticks for patients, increases work for clinical staff, and contributes to insertion of intravenous catheters being the most common invasive medical procedure and therefore a substantial contributor to health-care costs.2 Routine intravenous catheter replacement no more frequently than every 72–96 hours is currently recommended for adults by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).4 By contrast, the CDC recommends not to routinely replace intravenous catheters in children, or in high-risk catheters, such as arterial, haemodialysis, and central venous catheters, for which research has shown routine replacement does not prevent infection.4, 5
Modern intravenous catheters are made of low-irritant materials and might not need routine replacement. Results of well-designed observational studies have shown that longer dwell time increases daily phlebitis risk in a linear rather than exponential manner (ie, more intravenous catheter days overall increases risk, but later days of cannulation are not higher risk than earlier days).6, 7, 8 Thus, routine replacement of intravenous catheters might not benefit patients overall, since the same number of complications might be spread between larger numbers of devices. In 2007–10, results of four randomised controlled trials (n=200–755) supported clinically indicated removal of intravenous catheters as a safe alternative to routine replacement.9, 10, 11, 12 Despite this evidence, concerns have remained about whether abandoning this established practice would increase bloodstream infections.1 The 2011 CDC guidelines designate clinically indicated replacement of intravenous catheters as an unresolved issue, indicating that more research is needed.4
We aimed to understand the effect of extension of intravenous catheter dwell-time beyond 3 days with replacement of catheters only for clinical reasons. We postulated that patients who had intravenous catheters replaced when clinically indicated would have equivalent rates of phlebitis, and no difference in other complications, but reduced costs and number of catheter insertions, compared with patients with catheters removed every third day.
Section snippets
Study design and participants
We did this multicentre, non-blinded, randomised controlled equivalence trial in three university-affiliated, government hospitals in Queensland, Australia (Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston; Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba; and Gold Coast Hospital, Southport). Recruitment was from May 20, 2008, until the target sample size was achieved on Sept 9, 2009.
Research nurses screened medical and surgical units daily for participants. Patients aged at least 18 years with an
Results
Of 3379 eligible patients, 3283 were enrolled, and no patient withdrew consent (figure 1). In total, we studied 5907 intravenous catheters and 17 412 catheter days (clinically indicated 8693 days; routine replacement 8719 days). Table 1, Table 2 show patient and catheter characteristics. Protocol adherence was 85% in the clinically indicated group and 70% in the routine replacement group (figure 1). Of 1593 patients in the clinically indicated group, 1351 had 1844 intravenous catheters in place
Discussion
Phlebitis occurred in 7% of patients when intravenous catheters were removed when clinically indicated and when they were removed routinely every 3 days. The absolute difference was small (0·41%) and within the prestated 3% equivalence margin. We accepted the equivalence hypothesis and results were consistent across all analyses including per patient, per protocol, per catheter, and per 1000 catheter days. Likewise, study groups had equivalent occurrence of catheter-related bloodstream
References (35)
- et al.
Peripheral venous catheters: an under-evaluated problem
Int J Antimicrob Agents
(2009) - et al.
The risk of bloodstream infection in adults with different intravascular devices: a systematic review of 200 published prospective studies
Mayo Clin Proc
(2006) - et al.
Developing a Research base for Intravenous Peripheral cannula re-sites (DRIP trial). A randomised controlled trial of hospital in-patients
Int J Nurs Stud
(2007) - et al.
Risk factors for peripheral intravenous catheter infection in hospitalized patients: a prospective study of 3165 patients
Am J Infect Control
(2009) - et al.
Impact of microbial attachment on intravascular catheter-related infections
Int J Antimicrob Agents
(2011) - et al.
Prospective surveillance of phlebitis associated with peripheral intravenous catheters
Am J Infect Control
(2006) Improving the safety of peripheral intravenous catheters
BMJ
(2008)- et al.
Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections
Clin Infect Dis
(2011) - et al.
Central venous catheter replacement strategies: a systematic review of the literature
Crit Care Med
(1997) - et al.
Is routine replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters necessary?
Arch Intern Med
(1998)
Peripheral Teflon catheters: factors determining incidence of phlebitis and duration of cannulation
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol
Phlebitis rate and time kinetics of short peripheral IV catheters
Infection
Routine resite of peripheral intravenous devices every 3 days did not reduce complications compared with clinically indicated resite: a randomised controlled trial
BMC Med
Routine replacement versus clinical monitoring of peripheral intravenous catheters in a regional hospital in the home program: a randomized controlled trial
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol
Routine care of peripheral intravenous catheters versus clinically indicated replacement: randomised controlled trial
BMJ
Risk factors for infusion-related phlebitis with small peripheral venous catheters
Ann Intern Med
Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol
Cited by (293)
Peripheral intravenous catheter infection and failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis
2024, International Journal of Nursing StudiesReduction in the incidence of infusion-related phlebitis in a pediatric critical care unit of Eastern India: A quality improvement initiative
2024, Medical Journal Armed Forces IndiaMono- and bi-plane sonographic approach for difficult accesses in the emergency department – A randomized trial
2023, American Journal of Emergency MedicineBest practice in the use of peripheral venous catheters: A scoping review and expert consensus
2023, Infection Prevention in Practice