Effectiveness of vialon biomaterial versus teflon catheters for peripheral intravenous placement: A randomized clinical trial

Abstract

AimThis study was to determine the effects of the two types of catheter material (vialon biomaterial and teflon) on pain intensity, dwell time, and phlebitis score for peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) placement.MethodsParticipants (N = 208) were randomly assigned to the vialon biomaterial group (n = 104), the teflon group (n = 104). After the PIVC placement, the intensity of pain and phlebitis score were evaluated. Catheter dwell mean time was determined.ResultsThe pain intensity scores were similar immediately after inserting the PIVC. No difference was observed between the pain scores in both groups (p ≥ .050). Catheter dwell mean time for the vialon biomaterial catheter group (4.72 ± 1.20 days) was significantly longer compared to the teflon catheter group (4.10 ± 0.92 days) (p ≤ .001). It was determined that the catheter was removed due to phlebitis development in 16.3% of the vialon biomaterial catheter group and 53.8% of the teflon catheter group. An advanced level of statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of phlebitis development scores (p ≤ .001).ConclusionsThis study concluded that vialon biomaterial catheter (BD Insyte™ Autoguard™ BC winged) demonstrates longer dwell time of PIVC, lower phlebitis rate and phlebitis score than teflon catheter (BD Venflon™).

Effect of peripheral intravenous catheter type and material on therapy failure in a neonatal population

“…This finding concerning the superiority of PUR versus PTFE catheters for phlebitis risk is in accord with the literature. [14][15][16][17][18]28 The finding that, irrespective of phlebitis incidence the risk of therapy failure did not differ based on the material (PTFE or PUR) is interesting and requires further investigation to examine the impacts of additional confounding variables on modelling for IV therapy failure/ success before a definitive statement can be made. Nevertheless, these findings are reassuring to practitioners making real-world decisions about which PIVC to use.…”

“…Evidence for the superiority of PTFE over PVC and metal cannula and PUR over PTFE with regard to phlebitis risk and dwell time comes largely from small scale controlled studies with adult volunteers and real-world clinical studies. 11,14–19…”

“…Evidence for the superiority of PTFE over PVC and metal cannula and PUR over PTFE with regard to phlebitis risk and dwell time comes largely from small scale controlled studies with adult volunteers and real-world clinical studies. 11,[14][15][16][17][18][19] There is limited contemporary research evidence from large scale studies in neonatal populations regarding how factors like PIVC material affect IV therapy related outcomes. Currently there is limited standardization of practice and an absence of guidance on the optimal catheter material or design of PIVC for use with neonates.…”

Routine replacement versus replacement as clinical indicated of peripheral intravenous catheters: A multisite randomised controlled trial

“…In recent years, strategies to prevent phlebitis have been continuously implemented (Ray-Barruel et al, 2019). The improvement of PIVC materials (Kus & Buyukyilmaz, 2020), the use of in-line filtration (Villa et al, 2018) and the innovation of PIVC dressing materials and more research evidence have enabled phlebitis to be preventable (Yin et al, 2020). In addition, training on preventing phlebitis has also been improved (Keogh et al, 2020).…”

Design, development, and preliminary assessment of a novel peripheral intravenous catheter aimed at reducing early failure rates

“…Commercially, there is a plethora of differently designed PIVCs available to clinicians. However, other than the PIVC’s polymeric formulation (8, 9), the invasive segment of the catheter has not changed in the last few decades. In addition, manufacturers have sought to improve the device through the addition of wings and device stabilisers (10).…”