International prevalence of the use of peripheral intravenous catheters

Alexandrou, Evan; Ray‐Barruel, Gillian; Carr, Peter; Frost, Steven A.; Inwood, Sheila; Higgins, Niall; Lin, Frances; Alberto, Laura; Mermel, Leonard A.; Rickard, Claire M

doi:10.1002/jhm.2389

Cited by 190 publications

(176 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

153

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The estimates for PVC placements worldwide are more than a billion per year (Alexandrou et al, ), and up to 70% of hospitalised patients have a PVC inserted during their hospital stay (Zingg & Pittet, ). Based on this fact, according to Institute of Public Health of Serbia () data on the number of hospitalised patients in 2014 and the average number of PVC cannula insertions, annual estimates of PVC placements for Serbia are two and a half million per year.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Alexandrou et al () cited that data regarding PVC management in different regions are very limited and that local complications, although recognised as factors contributing to premature PVC removal, are underreported. Also, Carr et al () by using retrospective medical chart review established that due to poor documentation, the reasons for removal of more than half of PVCs were not recorded.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Incidence, severity and risk factors of peripheral intravenous cannula‐induced complications: An observational prospective study

Simin

Milutinović

Turkulov

et al. 2019

Journal of Clinical Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims and objectives To determine the incidence, severity and risk factors of peripheral intravenous cannula‐induced complications. Background Peripheral venous cannulation in hospitalised patients may cause complications such as phlebitis, infiltration, occlusion and dislodgement. A review of the literature reveals the discrepancy in their incidence and identification of a wide range of risk factors, whereas the data on the occurrence and degree of severity are insufficient. Design An observational prospective study. Methods The study observed 1,428 peripheral intravenous cannula insertion among 368 adult patients hospitalised at the tertiary healthcare clinics. The data collection and analysis included patients’ medical data and the data related to each cannula (including placement, monitoring and the reasons for removal), as well as the data on the type of administered medications and solutions. Reporting of this research adheres to the STROBE guidelines. Results Phlebitis ranked first among complications with occurrence of 44%, followed by infiltration of 16.3%, while the incidence of occlusion and catheter dislodgement was 7.6% and 5.6%, respectively. In assessing the occurrence of phlebitis, multivariate analysis highlighted the presence of comorbidity, current infection, catheter size, time in situ and the number of administrations of infusion solutions associated with risk, whereas 20‐gauge catheter, two or more attempts at cannulation and administration of a high‐risk solutions during the first day have been singled out with regard to infiltration. As for the severity, the most common was medium stage of phlebitis, whereas grade 2 was most commonly observed for infiltration. Conclusion The incidence of infiltration, occlusion and dislodgment is almost congruent with the average incidence of previous studies. However, the incidence and degree of severity associated with the occurrence of phlebitis were significantly higher. Relevance to clinical practice The results of the study draw attention to vulnerable groups of patients, cannula‐specific and pharmacological risk factors for the development of peripheral intravenous cannula‐induced complications.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incidence, severity and risk factors of peripheral intravenous cannula‐induced complications: An observational prospective study

Simin

Milutinović

Turkulov

et al. 2019

Journal of Clinical Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 Peripheral intravenous cannulation is a common intervention performed within the Emergency Department (ED). The purpose of inserting a PIVC is to obtain intravenous access to provide treatments for patients, such as those requiring the administration of pharmacological agents, intravenous fluids or pathology blood tests.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Utility of peripheral intravenous cannulae inserted in one tertiary referral emergency department: A medical record audit

Fry

Romero

Berry

2016

Australasian Emergency Nursing Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:Peripheral intravenous cannulation is a common intervention performed within the Emergency Department by medical staff to assist in the delivery of care. However, previous studies have shown Emergency Department patients that have cannula device inserted are often not used. Across Australia, it is unclear the utility and frequency of use of peripheral intravenous cannulae within the emergency setting. Method: This is a random retrospective cohort study. Clinical information was retrieved from the Emergency Department Database, FirstNet and the paper medical record. Data from FirstNet included: patient demographic (age, gender) and clinical information (time of arrival, triage category, presenting problem, discharge diagnostic code, and disposition). Data from the patient medical record included: demographic (age, gender) and clinical information (Cannula usage and time of fluids, pharmacological agents, complications, pathology radiological investigations, other diagnostic uses). Results: Of the 357 randomised patients, 189 (52.9%) had 209 peripheral intravenous cannula inserted. Of these cannulae 186 (88.9%) were used within 72 hours. The majority of cannulae (70.4%; n=131) had more than one medical intervention. Conclusion:The majority of peripheral intravenous cannulae inserted during the Emergency Department visit were subsequently used for medical treatment. Further, the majority of devices were used for intravenous fluids and or medications and accessed for multiple interventions. For future audit purposes improved documentation of this procedure is needed.

show abstract

“…In both of these prior studies, 30%-50% of PICCs were placed for nonspecific indications, such as difficult vascular access (14,21). PICC placement enables blood sampling and continuous vascular access without frequent venipunctures or direct cannulation of central veins, and these conveniences contribute to their expanding popularity (22,23). Because PICC use has increased, potential concerns about bloodstream infections, thromboses, and stenoses of central and peripheral veins have emerged (11)(12)(13)24,25).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters and Hemodialysis Outcomes

McGill

Ruthazer²,

Meyer

et al. 2016

CJASN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and objectives Use of peripherally inserted central catheters has expanded rapidly, but the consequences for patients who eventually require hemodialysis are undefined.Design, setting, participants, & measurements Our national, population-based analysis included 33,918 adult Medicare beneficiaries from the US Renal Data System who initiated hemodialysis with central venous catheters as their sole vascular access in 2010 and 2011. We used linked Medicare claims to identify peripherally inserted central catheter exposures and evaluate the associations of peripherally inserted central catheter placement with transition to working arteriovenous fistulas or grafts and patient survival using a Cox model with timedependent variables.Results Among 33,918 individuals initiating hemodialysis with a catheter as sole access, 12.6% had received at least one peripherally inserted central catheter. Median follow-up was 404 days (interquartile range, 103-680 days). Among 6487 peripherally inserted central catheters placed, 3435 (53%) were placed within the 2 years before hemodialysis initiation, and 3052 (47%) were placed afterward. Multiple peripherally inserted central catheters were placed in 30% of patients exposed to peripherally inserted central catheters. Recipients of peripherally inserted central catheters were more likely to be women and have comorbid diagnoses and less likely to have received predialysis nephrology care. After adjustment for clinical and demographic factors, peripherally inserted central catheters placed before or after hemodialysis initiation were independently associated with lower likelihoods of transition to any working fistula or graft (hazard ratio for prehemodialysis peripherally inserted central catheter, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 0.91; hazard ratio for posthemodialysis peripherally inserted central catheter, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.73 to 0.89).Conclusions Peripherally inserted central catheter placement was common and associated with adverse vascular access outcomes. Recognition of potential long-term adverse consequences of peripherally inserted central catheters is essential for clinicians caring for patients with CKD.

show abstract

International prevalence of the use of peripheral intravenous catheters

Cited by 190 publications

References 13 publications

Incidence, severity and risk factors of peripheral intravenous cannula‐induced complications: An observational prospective study

Incidence, severity and risk factors of peripheral intravenous cannula‐induced complications: An observational prospective study

Utility of peripheral intravenous cannulae inserted in one tertiary referral emergency department: A medical record audit

Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters and Hemodialysis Outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About