Use of tissue adhesive for neonatal intravenous access devices: A scoping review.

Neonates often require vascular access devices for medication or fluid therapy, but a third of devices fail before treatment completion or end with a complication. For adults and children, securing these devices with tissue adhesive (TA) increases the dwell and reduces complications. However, there is a lack of evidence for the neonatal population. This scoping review aimed to assess the evidence of TA for vascular access devices in neonates. The Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) framework was used. The inclusion criteria covered studies published from 2007 (when TA was first reported for use in vascular access devices) to June 2024, available in English, Portuguese, and Spanish, across six databases. Two independent reviewers assessed the studies using Covidence software, with a third reviewer resolving conflicts. Quality assessment was performed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. From 981 identified studies, 12 were included. Most studies (n = 5, 41.7%) enrolled between 100 and 500 neonates with vascular access devices. Publications originated from four regions and were observational studies (n = 6, 50%), quasi-experimental (n = 3, 25%), and case series (n = 2, 16.7%) with one randomized controlled trial (8.3%) focusing on umbilical venous catheters (UVC). The most common TA composition used was a combination of n-butyl- and 2-octyl- cyanoacrylate (n = 4, 33.3%). The amount of TA applied varied across studies, and often TA was part of a bundle (n = 7, 58.3%). Most studies applied TA to central venous access devices (n = 10, 83.3%) and 2 (16.7%) in peripheral devices. Although there was variation in device failure, the studies generally indicated a reduction in complications such as dislodgment (central catheter: 11.3% [peripherally inserted central catheter {PICC}] to 24.6% [UVC] in non-TA group vs 0.7% [PICC] to 7.7% [UVC] in TA group), device-associated bloodstream infections (central: 7.7% [UVC] and incidence of 2.76/1000 catheter days [PICC] in non-TA group vs 3.1% [UVC] and incidence of 0.99/1000 catheter day [PICC] in TA group), and phlebitis (13% in non-TA group vs 3% in TA-group), as well as increased dwell time in peripheral catheters. Most studies included both term and preterm neonates but did not differentiate between them in their analyses. Skin assessment, life of first dressing, and follow-up of catheters and patients were not reported in most studies.

Conclusion: TA may reduce complications in vascular access devices, but the evidence in neonates is limited and varied. Many studies include TA as part of bundle, making it difficult to isolate its effects. Additionally, the current evidence lacks robustness due to the design limitations of the studies. Future research should focus on randomized controlled trials to evaluate TA's effectiveness and safety in preventing device failures and complications in neonates, considering different subgroups, to ensure the safety of TA in these nuanced populations.

What is known: • Research in adults and pediatrics provides evidence supporting the use of tissue adhesive (TA) for vascular access devices, showing a positive impact in reducing failures and complications. • The use of TA in neonates needs to be carefully considered due to their unique characteristics.

What is new: • There is a gap in the literature on the use of TA for securing vascular access devices in neonates, particularly regarding its safety and effectiveness in preventing failures and complications. • Further studies are needed to provide robust evidence verifying the effectiveness and safety of TA in this population.