Optimal Timing for Peripheral Intravenous Cannula Replacement

Aladeen Alloubani, Mohammad Awwad, Laila M. Akhu-Zaheya
{"title":"Optimal Timing for Peripheral Intravenous Cannula Replacement","authors":"Aladeen Alloubani, Mohammad Awwad, Laila M. Akhu-Zaheya","doi":"10.2174/1874279301911010001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Current literature indicates the optimal replacement time of an intravenous catheter, ranges from when “clinically indicated” (i.e. signs of complications such as infection, occlusion, and/or phlebitis) to three days. The time constraint is designed to prevent infection(s) and phlebitis, as well as to decrease the costs of healthcare, and the time spent by nurses, on patient care.\n \n \n \n To evaluate the impact of routine removal and re-siting of the peripheral intravenous catheter removal, compared to removal when “clinically indicated” by adults and/or pediatrics.\n \n \n \n A search for literature was conducted via Cochrane Review and Web of Sciences™ Core Collection, MEDLINE, and PubMed to summarise the optimal timing for peripheral intravenous cannula replacement. One reviewer individually evaluated the trial(s), review(s), quality of the guidelines, and then, extracted the data.\n \n \n \n Criteria included guideline(s); randomized controlled trial(s); and reviews; all of which matched routine removal of peripheral intravenous cannulation, with re-sited when “clinically indicated”, only in patients in the hospital, partaking in intravenous medication and/or fluids. Articles of relevance to the topic, published in English, French, or Portuguese, prior to 2018, were reviewed.\n \n \n \n The effective implementation of evidence-based, guideline-based practice can decrease the catheter-related infection risk. While larger multi-site trials are required, present-day evidence asserts: the repetitive inserting of a peripheral intravenous device may raise the patient’s level of discomfort, increase the costs of healthcare, and does not decrease complications associated with peripheral intravenous devices.\n \n \n \n The clinically indicated intravenous catheter replacement procedure is cost-effective, compared with the recurring replacement procedure, which recurs every 72 hours; it has been suggested that healthcare institution(s) and hospital(s) have considered revising the policy, whereby intravenous catheters are replaced, if clinically indicated, only.\n","PeriodicalId":88330,"journal":{"name":"The open infectious diseases journal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The open infectious diseases journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1874279301911010001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Current literature indicates the optimal replacement time of an intravenous catheter, ranges from when “clinically indicated” (i.e. signs of complications such as infection, occlusion, and/or phlebitis) to three days. The time constraint is designed to prevent infection(s) and phlebitis, as well as to decrease the costs of healthcare, and the time spent by nurses, on patient care. To evaluate the impact of routine removal and re-siting of the peripheral intravenous catheter removal, compared to removal when “clinically indicated” by adults and/or pediatrics. A search for literature was conducted via Cochrane Review and Web of Sciences™ Core Collection, MEDLINE, and PubMed to summarise the optimal timing for peripheral intravenous cannula replacement. One reviewer individually evaluated the trial(s), review(s), quality of the guidelines, and then, extracted the data. Criteria included guideline(s); randomized controlled trial(s); and reviews; all of which matched routine removal of peripheral intravenous cannulation, with re-sited when “clinically indicated”, only in patients in the hospital, partaking in intravenous medication and/or fluids. Articles of relevance to the topic, published in English, French, or Portuguese, prior to 2018, were reviewed. The effective implementation of evidence-based, guideline-based practice can decrease the catheter-related infection risk. While larger multi-site trials are required, present-day evidence asserts: the repetitive inserting of a peripheral intravenous device may raise the patient’s level of discomfort, increase the costs of healthcare, and does not decrease complications associated with peripheral intravenous devices. The clinically indicated intravenous catheter replacement procedure is cost-effective, compared with the recurring replacement procedure, which recurs every 72 hours; it has been suggested that healthcare institution(s) and hospital(s) have considered revising the policy, whereby intravenous catheters are replaced, if clinically indicated, only.
外周静脉置管的最佳时机
目前的文献表明,静脉导管的最佳更换时间从“临床指示”(即感染、闭塞和/或静脉炎等并发症的迹象)到三天不等。时间限制旨在防止感染和静脉炎,并降低医疗成本和护士在患者护理上花费的时间。与成人和/或儿科“临床指示”的移除相比,评估常规移除和重新放置外周静脉导管移除的影响。通过Cochrane Review和Web of Sciences进行文献检索™ Core Collection、MEDLINE和PubMed总结了外周静脉插管置换的最佳时机。一名评审员分别评估了试验、评审和指南的质量,然后提取了数据。标准包括准则;随机对照试验;和审查;所有这些都与常规移除外周静脉插管相匹配,并在“临床指示”时重新定位,仅在医院参与静脉药物和/或液体的患者中进行。对2018年之前以英语、法语或葡萄牙语发表的与该主题相关的文章进行了审查。有效实施循证、基于指南的实践可以降低导管相关感染的风险。虽然需要更大规模的多部位试验,但目前的证据表明:重复插入外周静脉注射设备可能会增加患者的不适程度,增加医疗成本,并且不会减少与外周静脉输液设备相关的并发症。与每72小时重复一次的重复性更换程序相比,临床指示的静脉导管更换程序具有成本效益;有人建议,医疗机构和医院已考虑修改该政策,即仅在临床上有指示的情况下更换静脉导管。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书