National practice of Nursing professionals in the insertion of peripheral vascular access devices.

OBJECTIVE: to identify and compare the practice of Nursing professionals regarding the insertion of peripheral vascular access devices, according to professional category. METHOD: descriptive sectional study carried out between July 2021 and May 2022 with 2,584 Nursing professionals, using a questionnaire validated by three judges with expertise in intravenous therapy, containing variables related to catheterization and the vascular access device. Descriptive and inferential analysis was carried out. RESULTS: most professionals do not prepare the patient or perform some essential care before attempting peripheral intravenous catheterization. Regarding the preferred catheterization site, hands, arm and forearm stand out. There is no control over the tourniquet time, and the patient is punctured more than three times. The most used device materials are polyurethane and Teflon ® , more than one criterion is adopted for device selection, and Micropore ® type adhesive tape was the covering most cited by Nursing professionals. The identification of catheterization was not adequate. CONCLUSION: Nursing technicians and assistants are the professionals who least comply with what is recommended in recognized guidelines. Nurses' practice also presents deviations from scientific evidence.

Complications in the use of peripherally inserted central catheter associated with peripheral intravenous therapy: retrospective cohort.

OBJECTIVE: to analyze the occurrence of difficulty in the peripheral insertion of the central catheter and the presence of complications in the use of this device in hospitalized adults who received peripheral intravenous therapy through a short peripheral intravenous catheter and to identify whether there is an association between peripheral intravenous therapy and the presence of complications in the use of the peripherally inserted central catheter. METHOD: retrospective cohort, with patients aged 18 years or over, in a tertiary teaching hospital, with a peripherally inserted central catheter, who had at least one previous short peripheral intravenous catheter. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Poisson regression. RESULTS: the sample consisted of 76 patients. There was an association between difficulty in the insertion procedure and number of punctures (p<0.01) and insertion in the external jugular vein compared to the upper limbs (p<0.01). The insertion site was also associated with the removal of the peripherally inserted central catheter due to complications in the robust analysis of variance (p=0.02). No associations were identified between: difficulty inserting the device and time on peripheral intravenous therapy (crude model p=0.23; adjusted model p=0.21); difficulty in insertion with administration of irritating and vesicant medication (crude model p=0.69; adjusted model p=0.53); complication in the use of peripherally inserted central catheter and time of peripheral intravenous therapy (crude and adjusted models p=0.08); and secondary migration of the catheter tip with the device insertion site (p=0.24). CONCLUSION: it was possible to identify secondary migration as one of the main complications, resulting in premature removal of the device. Furthermore, the greater the number of puncture attempts to insert the PICC, the greater the difficulty in inserting it. Insertion into the external jugular vein was recurrent, with a higher risk of removal due to complications in relation to the upper limbs.

Procedure-Related Complication Rates With the Use of Vascular Closure Devices; Does Size Only Matter? A Large Single Centre Retrospective Study.

INTRODUCTION: Our retrospective study aimed at assessing safety of vascular closure devices (VCDs) used in a large single-centre Interventional Radiology (IR) department. Complication and deployment failure rates using collagen-based (Angio-seal) and suture-based (ProGlide) devices for common femoral artery haemostasis were compared. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from VCDs deployed over a 6-year period were retrospectively analysed for patient age, procedure indication, puncture mode (antegrade/retrograde), sheath size, deployment failure and complications (haematoma, pseudoaneurysm formation, limb occlusion). Numerical and statistical analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: Overall, 1321 common femoral artery punctures in 1217 patients were closed using VCDs. Failure rate using ProGlide was significantly higher when compared with Angio-seal (P=<0.001) in sheath sizes ≤8 Fr. Heparin was not administered in embolisation procedures compared with angioplasty with or without stenting. Therefore, haematoma tended to occur more frequently following angioplasty without stenting (P = 0.003) and angioplasty with stenting (P = 0.001), when compared with embolisation. Deployment failure occurred more frequently when heparin was used during the procedure (P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Although complications relating to sheath size are well established in the literature, there remains a paucity of data assessing the impact of procedure specific factors when comparing VCDs. Our study challenges that size is the sole determinant of VCD success and invites a more holistic view of VCD deployment strategies. This study advocates continued research into the nuances of other potential confounding variables to optimise patient outcomes.

Femoral Large Bore Sheath Management: How to Prevent Vascular Complications From Vessel Puncture to Sheath Removal.

Transfemoral access is nowadays required for an increasing number of percutaneous procedures, such as structural heart interventions, mechanical circulatory support, and interventional electrophysiology/pacing. Despite technological advancements and improved techniques, these devices necessitate large-bore (≥12 French) arterial/venous sheaths, posing a significant risk of bleeding and vascular complications, whose occurrence has been related to an increase in morbidity and mortality. Therefore, optimizing large-bore vascular access management is crucial in endovascular interventions. Technical options, including optimized preprocedural planning and proper selection and utilization of vascular closure devices, have been developed to increase safety. This review explores the comprehensive management of large-bore accesses, from optimal vascular puncture to sheath removal. It also discusses strategies for managing closure device failure, with the goal of minimizing vascular complications.

Ultrasonic Doppler as a guide for feline peripheral arterial catheterization.

OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to determine if an ultrasonic Doppler-guided technique (UDGT) leads to improved placement efficacy (time, success) of feline dorsal pedal arterial catheters vs the traditional palpation-guided technique (TPT). METHODS: A total of 26 adult, client-owned cats requiring sedation or general anesthesia for any reason, aged >12 months and weighing >3.0 kg, and with Doppler blood pressure measurements of at least 80 mmHg were enrolled. Each hindlimb was randomly assigned for dorsal pedal arterial catheterization using either the UDGT or TPT. With the UDGT, the location of the artery was identified by an audible sound using the Doppler. Successful catheter placement was confirmed by visualization of an arterial pressure waveform using a transducer and monitor system attached to the catheter. The Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were used to compare the two techniques. RESULTS: The overall proportion of successful arterial catheterization was 17% (9/52): 19% (5/26) via UDGT and 15% (4/26) via TPT. Among successful arterial catheterizations (n = 9), the mean time to catheterization was 339 ± 198 s: 328 ± 237 s (n = 5) with UDGT and 353 ± 171 s (n = 4) with TPT. The log-rank test showed the two techniques were not significantly different in likelihood of successful arterial catheter placement or time to successful catheterization (P = 0.698). An arterial flash occurred in 62% (32/52) of the limbs, 58% (15/26) with the UDGT and 65% (17/26) with the TPT. Complications (self-limiting bruising, hematoma formation) were observed equally between UDGT (3/26 limbs) and TPT (3/26 limbs) in six cats. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The UDGT did not improve the efficacy of catheter placement compared with the TPT. Few complications were associated with arterial catheterization.

Randomised controlled trials in vascular access devices in emergency departments: a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: The significance of vascular access devices for patients in the emergency department (ED) is undeniable. When it comes to evaluating the effectiveness of interventions, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) stand out as the most reliable sources of evidence compared with other study designs. AIM: To explore and synthesise the findings from RCTs related to vascular access devices in the ED setting. METHODS: A systematic search will be conducted in electronic medical databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Pubmed, CINAHL and Embase databases. All RCTs focusing on peripheral intravenous catheters, central venous catheters and intraosseous catheters, published in English and Chinese in peer-reviewed journals within the past decade, will be included. CONCLUSION: This scoping review will summarise the current state of evidence for vascular access devices in the ED setting. This will identify gaps in the literature and, in turn, assist clinicians and researchers in pinpointing areas for future exploration and provide a valuable guide for future research.

A latent bleeding complication in ipsilateral common femoral puncture involving delayed diagnosis: a case report.

BACKGROUND: The trans femoral ipsilateral approach is often adopted for endovascular treatment (EVT) for better steerability of guidewires or better device deliverability. However, contrary to the trans femoral contralateral approach, ipsilateral antegrade puncture sometimes causes peculiar bleeding complications. CASE PRESENTATION: A 76-year-old female underwent EVT for chronic occlusion of the left superficial femoral artery (SFA) via the ipsilateral antegrade approach. After guidewire passage, we inflated the drug-coated balloons, but angiography showed blood flow stasis at the mid segment of the SFA. We also ensured prolonged balloon inflation, which resulted in favorable blood flow. While trying to ensure hemostasis, the blood pressure remained decreased, but neither bleeding nor superficial hematoma were observed at the puncture site. After hemostasis was achieved, we removed the surgical drape and noticed a swelling in the mid-portion of the thigh, distant from the puncture point. We then approached the left common femoral artery (CFA) contralaterally. Angiography showed continuous bleeding from a little bit distally to the sheath insertion point that was spreading through an intramuscular space. We stopped the bleeding with balloon tamponade inside the CFA. Angiography after hemostasis demonstrated blood flow stasis at the mid-segment of the SFA, similarly as that seen before. We confirmed compression of the SFA by a large hematoma using both intra- and extra- vascular ultrasound. Therefore, we deployed a self-expandable stent at the compressed SFA position. Finally, we achieved favorable blood flow on angiography. CONCLUSION: We encountered a case that latent bleeding unrecognized in the surgical field persisted while prolonged inflation of DCB was conducted at just proximal SFA. We could have avoided bailout stenting by noticing the bleeding incident in a timely manner. Prediction and prevention are essential for all kinds of procedural complications in EVT.

Peripherally inserted central catheter design and material for reducing catheter failure and complications.

BACKGROUND: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) facilitate diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in health care. PICCs can fail due to infective and non-infective complications, which PICC materials and design may contribute to, leading to negative sequelae for patients and healthcare systems. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of PICC material and design in reducing catheter failure and complications. SEARCH METHODS: The University of Queensland and Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases and the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 16 May 2023. We aimed to identify other potentially eligible trials or ancillary publications by searching the reference lists of retrieved included trials, as well as relevant systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology assessment reports. We contacted experts in the field to ascertain additional relevant information. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating PICC design and materials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were venous thromboembolism (VTE), PICC-associated bloodstream infection (BSI), occlusion, and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were catheter failure, PICC-related BSI, catheter breakage, PICC dwell time, and safety endpoints. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 RCTs involving approximately 2913 participants (one multi-arm study). All studies except one had a high risk of bias in one or more risk of bias domain. Integrated valve technology compared to no valve technology for peripherally inserted central catheter design Integrated valve technology may make little or no difference to VTE risk when compared with PICCs with no valve (risk ratio (RR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 2.63; I² = 0%; 3 studies; 437 participants; low certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether integrated valve technology reduces PICC-associated BSI risk, as the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.00; I² = not applicable; 2 studies (no events in 1 study); 257 participants). Integrated valve technology may make little or no difference to occlusion risk when compared with PICCs with no valve (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.38; I² = 0%; 5 studies; 900 participants; low certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether use of integrated valve technology reduces all-cause mortality risk, as the certainty of evidence is very low (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.64; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 473 participants). Integrated valve technology may make little or no difference to catheter failure risk when compared with PICCs with no valve (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.03; I² = 0%; 4 studies; 720 participants; low certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether integrated-valve technology reduces PICC-related BSI risk (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.32; I² = not applicable; 2 studies (no events in 1 study); 542 participants) or catheter breakage, as the certainty of evidence is very low (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.22 to 5.06; I² = 20%; 4 studies; 799 participants). Anti-thrombogenic surface modification compared to no anti-thrombogenic surface modification for peripherally inserted central catheter design We are uncertain whether use of anti-thrombogenic surface modified catheters reduces risk of VTE (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.54; I² = 15%; 2 studies; 257 participants) or PICC-associated BSI, as the certainty of evidence is very low (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.00; I² = not applicable; 2 studies (no events in 1 study); 257 participants). We are uncertain whether use of anti-thrombogenic surface modified catheters reduces occlusion (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.04 to 11.22; I² = 70%; 2 studies; 257 participants) or all-cause mortality risk, as the certainty of evidence is very low (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.26; I² = not applicable; 1 study; 111 participants). Use of anti-thrombogenic surface modified catheters may make little or no difference to risk of catheter failure (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.54; I² = 46%; 2 studies; 257 participants; low certainty evidence). No PICC-related BSIs were reported in one study (111 participants). As such, we are uncertain whether use of anti-thrombogenic surface modified catheters reduces PICC-related BSI risk (RR not estimable; I² = not applicable; very low certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether use of anti-thrombogenic surface modified catheters reduces the risk of catheter breakage, as the certainty of evidence is very low (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.79; I² = not applicable; 2 studies (no events in 1 study); 257 participants). Antimicrobial impregnation compared to non-antimicrobial impregnation for peripherally inserted central catheter design We are uncertain whether use of antimicrobial-impregnated catheters reduces VTE risk (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.88; I² = not applicable; 1 study; 167 participants) or PICC-associated BSI risk, as the certainty of evidence is very low (RR 2.17, 95% CI 0.20 to 23.53; I² = not applicable; 1 study; 167 participants). Antimicrobial-impregnated catheters probably make little or no difference to occlusion risk (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.74; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 1025 participants; moderate certainty evidence) or all-cause mortality (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.75; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 1082 participants; moderate certainty evidence). Antimicrobial-impregnated catheters may make little or no difference to risk of catheter failure (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; I² = not applicable; 1 study; 221 participants; low certainty evidence). Antimicrobial-impregnated catheters probably make little or no difference to PICC-related BSI risk (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.55; I² = not applicable; 2 studies (no events in 1 study); 1082 participants; moderate certainty evidence). Antimicrobial-impregnated catheters may make little or no difference to risk of catheter breakage (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.83; I² = not applicable; 1 study; 804 participants; low certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited high-quality RCT evidence available to inform clinician decision-making for PICC materials and design. Limitations of the current evidence include small sample sizes, infrequent events, and risk of bias. There may be little to no difference in the risk of VTE, PICC-associated BSI, occlusion, or mortality across PICC materials and designs. Further rigorous RCTs are needed to reduce uncertainty.

Long-term intravenous devices: a narrative review of their placement.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review summarizes the latest findings and recommendations about the characteristics, indications and use of peripheral and central long-term venous access devices.The various complications inherent in these devices are becoming better known, and their contributing factors determined, which could make it possible to reduce their incidence. RECENT FINDINGS: Some measures are integrated into recommendations for good practice, such as appropriate selection of devices, the preferential use of the thinnest catheters, and cyanoacrylate glue and dressings impregnated with chlorhexidine. SUMMARY: Improving understanding of the phenomena leading to infectious and thrombotic complications, as well as better knowing the differences between intravenous devices and their respective indications, should lead to improvement of in-hospital and out-of-hospital care.

The Safety and Efficacy of ZelanteDVT™ Catheter Rheolytic Thrombectomy in the Treatment of Patients with Iliac Vein Stent Thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: To examine the safety and efficacy of ZelanteDVT™ catheter rheolytic thrombectomy in the treatment of patients with iliac vein stent thrombosis. METHODS: A retrospective analysis method was conducted by means of collecting the data of 32 patients who had completed the treatment of iliac vein stent thrombosis with ZelanteDVT catheter rheolytic thrombectomy from March 2019 to March 2023. Data on clinical characteristics, technical success, clinical success, complications, and early follow-up were analyzed. RESULTS: The technical success rates were 100%, intraoperatively, in which 22 cases were improved to thrombus clearance Grade II (50-90%), 10 were Grade III (>90%). There were 21 cases treated with subsequent catheter-directed thrombolysis, and the average urokinase administration of (120.90 ± 29.63)∗10ˆ4 units. The clinical success rates were 100% and the swelling of the affected limbs were significantly improved, a significant difference in the pre/postoperative between-thigh circumference difference [(5.16 ± 1.08) vs. (1.75 ± 0.84), P < 0.000]. The pre/postoperative Venous Clinical Severity Score was [(12.94 ± 1.70) vs. (7.44 ± 1.31), P < 0.000]. No serious complications occurred during the perioperative period. The postoperative and 12-month stent patency rate was 100.00% (32/32) and 71.88% (23/32), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The ZelanteDVT catheter rheolytic thrombectomy seems to have a promising application prospect for the treatment of patients with iliac vein stent thrombosis.

Four-Stage Rocket technique: A novel strategy for lead extractions using laser sheaths from the femoral vein.

INTRODUCTION: Transvenous lead extractions (TLEs) for cardiac implantable electronic device complications often encounter difficulties with strong adhesions to the myocardium or vessels. In this report, we introduce a novel "Four-Stage Rocket" technique for effective TLE in cases where conventional methods fail. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two challenging cases where conventional TLE methods failed were treated using a combination of four devices: Needle's Eye Snare, Agilis NxT Steerable Introducer, GlideLight Laser sheath, and GORE® DrySeal Flex Introducer sheath, employed via the inferior vena cava. The "Four-Stage Rocket" technique successfully detached firmly adhered leads near the tricuspid valve annulus, where the traditional superior vena cava approach was inadequate. CONCLUSION: The "Four-Stage Rocket" technique offers a potential alternative in complex TLE cases, aligning the laser direction with the adhesion detachment and reducing the tissue damage risk.

The effect of different flushing and locking techniques on catheter occlusion rates in central venous catheters: protocol for a multicentre, randomized controlled, parallel-group, open-label, superiority clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Maintaining venous access is of great clinical importance. Running a slow continuous infusion to keep the vein open (KVO) is often used in peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs). Previous studies have compared the effects of intermittent flushing and continuous infusion via peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). In this study, we applied KVO to central venous catheters (CVCs) and compared the occlusion rate of this technique with that of the intermittent flushing technique. METHOD: This is a randomized controlled trial of 14 hospitals in China. A total of 250 patients will be recruited in this study, and they will be randomized at a 1:1 ratio. After study inclusion, patients who will undergo CVC insertion will receive intermittent flushing with prefilled saline syringes (control group) or KVO infusion with elastic pumps (test group). All the catheters will be checked for patency by scoping Catheter Injection and Aspiration (CINAS) Classification on Days 3 and 7. The primary outcome is the rate of catheter occlusion in 7 days. Patients will be followed up until 9 days after CVC insertion, catheter occlusion, or catheter removal. The secondary outcomes are the rate of catheter occlusion in 3 days, nurse satisfaction, cost-effectiveness, adverse event rate, catheter-related bloodstream infection rate, catheter-related thrombosis rate, extravasation rate, phlebitis rate, and catheter migration. DISCUSSION: We expect that the trial will generate findings that can provide an evidence-based basis for the improvement and optimization of clinical catheter flushing techniques. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2200064007. Registered on 23 September 2022. https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=177311 .

Cross-Seal IDE Trial: Prospective, Multicenter, Single-Arm Study of the Cross-Seal Suture-Mediated Vascular Closure Device System.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of interventional procedures require large-sheath technology (>12F) with a favorable outcome with endovascular rather than open surgical access. However, vascular complications are a limitation for the management of these patients. This trial aimed to determine the effectiveness and safety of the Cross-Seal suture-mediated vascular closure device in obtaining hemostasis at the target limb access site following interventional procedures using 8F to 18F procedural sheaths. METHODS: The Cross-Seal IDE trial (Investigational Device Exemption) was a prospective, single-arm, multicenter study in subjects undergoing percutaneous endovascular procedures utilizing 8F to 18F ID procedural sheaths. The primary efficacy end point was time to hemostasis at the target limb access site. The primary safety end point was freedom from major complications of the target limb access site within 30 days post procedure. RESULTS: A total of 147 subjects were enrolled between August 9, 2019, and March 12, 2020. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement was performed in 53.7% (79/147) and percutaneous endovascular abdominal/thoracic aortic aneurysm repair in 46.3% (68/147) of subjects. The mean sheath ID was 15.5±1.8 mm. The primary effectiveness end point of time to hemostasis was 0.4±1.4 minutes. An adjunctive intervention was required in 9.2% (13/142) of subjects, of which 2.1% (3/142) were surgical and 5.6% (8/142) endovascular. Technical success was achieved in 92.3% (131/142) of subjects. Freedom from major complications of the target limb access site was 94.3% (83/88). CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients undergoing percutaneous endovascular procedures utilizing 8F to 18F ID procedural sheath, Cross-Seal suture-mediated vascular closure device achieved favorable effectiveness and safety in the closure of the large-bore arteriotomy. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03756558.

Adverse Events from Fluoroscopic versus Portable Placement of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters and Central Venous Catheters in Pediatric Patients.

PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of fluoroscopic versus portable placement of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and central venous catheters (CVCs) in pediatric patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a single-center, retrospective review of 346 upper-extremity PICC placements (286 fluoroscopic and 60 portable; mean age, 9.83 years [SD ± 5.58]; 49.1% female) and 138 tunneled femoral CVC placements (56 fluoroscopic and 82 portable; mean age, 0.23 years [SD ± 0.36]; 57.0% female). Portable placements used mobile plain-film radiography. All lines were placed by board-certified interventional radiologists. RESULTS: Fluoroscopic PICC placements had a lower procedure time (43.9 vs 57.9 minutes; P < .001), radiation dosage (342 vs 590 mGy·cm2; P < .001), incidence of technical failure (0% vs 3.3%; P = .029), and incidence of catheter malfunction (1.7% vs 12.1%; P < .001) compared with portable PICC placements. Fluoroscopic CVC placements had a lower procedure time (42.6 vs 54.8 minutes; P < .001) and radiation dosage (63.8 vs 405 mGy·cm2; P < .001) compared with portable CVC placements. No technical failures were found in either CVC groups and the difference was nonsignificant for catheter malfunction (0% vs 7.3%; P = .081). Fluoroscopic placements of PICCs and CVCs had a lower incidence rate of central line-associated bloodstream infection compared with portable placements (0.71 vs 2.22 cases per 1,000 line-days; P = .046). Overall, fluoroscopic placements of PICCs and CVCs had fewer adverse events compared with portable placements (3.2% vs 14.8%; P < .001). Portable procedure setting was the only significant factor associated with adverse events (odds ratio, 33.77; 95% CI, 4.56-757.01). CONCLUSIONS: Fluoroscopic placements of PICCs and CVCs are associated with lower procedure time, radiation dose, and risk of adverse events compared with portable placements in pediatric patients.

Dressings and securement devices to prevent complications for peripheral arterial catheters.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral arterial catheters (ACs) are used in anaesthesia and intensive care settings for blood sampling and monitoring. Despite their importance, ACs often fail, requiring reinsertion. Dressings and securement devices maintain AC function and prevent complications such as infection. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of peripheral AC dressing and securement devices to prevent failure and complications in hospitalised people. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL Plus up to 16 May 2023. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to 16 May 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different dressing and securement devices for the stabilisation of ACs in hospitalised people. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's RoB 1 tool. We resolved disagreements by discussion, or by consulting a third review author when necessary. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs with 1228 participants and 1228 ACs. All included studies had high risk of bias in one or more domains. We present the following four comparisons, with the remaining comparisons reported in the main review. Standard polyurethane (SPU) plus tissue adhesive (TA) compared with SPU: we are very uncertain whether use of SPU plus TA impacts rates of AC failure (risk ratio (RR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.98; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 165 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Neither study (165 participants) reported catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI), thus we are very uncertain whether SPU plus TA impacts on the incidence of CRBSI (very low-certainty evidence). It is very uncertain whether use of SPU plus TA impacts AC dislodgement risk (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.03 to 9.62; I² = 44%; 2 studies, 165 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether use of SPU plus TA impacts AC occlusion rates (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.91; I² = 3%; 2 studies, 165 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether use of SPU plus TA impacts rates of adverse events with few reported events across groups (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.09 to 8.33; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 165 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Bordered polyurethane (BPU) compared to SPU: we are very uncertain whether use of BPU impacts rates of AC failure (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.13; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). BPU may make little or no difference to CRBSI compared to SPU (RR 3.05, 95% CI 0.12 to 74.45; I² = not applicable as 1 study (60 participants) reported 0 events; 2 studies, 572 participants; low-certainty evidence). BPU may make little or no difference to the risk of AC dislodgement compared with SPU (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.22; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 572 participants; low-certainty evidence). BPU may make little or no difference to occlusion risk compared with SPU (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.07; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 572 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is very uncertain whether BPU impacts on the risk of adverse events compared with SPU (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.87; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). SPU plus sutureless securement devices (SSD) compared to SPU: we are very uncertain whether SPU plus SSD impacts risk of AC failure compared with SPU (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.52; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 157 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain if SPU plus SSD impacts CRBSI incidence rate with no events in both groups (2 studies, 157 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is very uncertain whether SPU plus SSD impacts risk of dislodgement (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.57; I² = not applicable as 1 study (96 participants) reported 0 events; 2 studies, 157 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is very uncertain whether SPU plus SSD impacts risk of AC occlusion (RR 1.94, 95% CI 0.50 to 7.48; I² = 38%; 2 studies, 157 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether SPU plus SSD impacts on the risk of adverse events (RR 1.94, 95% CI 0.19 to 20.24; I² = not applicable as 1 study (96 participants) reported 0 events; 2 studies, 157 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Integrated securement dressings compared to SPU: integrated securement dressings may result in little or no difference in risk of AC failure compared with SPU (RR 1.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 4.84; 1 study, 105 participants; low-certainty evidence); may result in little or no difference in CRBSI incidence with no events reported (1 study, 105 participants; low-certainty evidence); may result in little or no difference in the risk of dislodgement (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.04; 1 study, 105 participants; low-certainty evidence), may result in little or no difference in occlusion rates with no events reported (1 study, 105 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may result in little or no difference in the risk of adverse events (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.45; 1 study, 105 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently limited rigorous RCT evidence available about the relative clinical effectiveness of AC dressing and securement products. Limitations of current evidence include small sample size, infrequent events, and heterogeneous outcome measurements. We found no clear difference in the incidence of AC failure, CRBSI, or adverse events across AC dressing or securement products including SPU, BPU, SSD, TA, and integrated securement products. The limitations of current evidence means further rigorous RCTs are needed to reduce uncertainty around the use of dressing and securement devices for ACs.

Novel Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Securement for Children and Catheter Failure Reduction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) facilitate essential treatment. Failure of these essential devices is frequent and new securement strategies may reduce failure and improve patient outcomes. Objective: To evaluate clinical effectiveness of novel PIVC securement technologies for children to reduce catheter failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: A 3-arm, parallel group, superiority randomized clinical trial was conducted at 2 regional Australian hospitals from February 5, 2020, to January 14, 2022. Children aged 6 months to 8 years who were anticipated to require admission with a PIVC for at least 24 hours of in hospital treatment were eligible. Data were analyzed from May 25, 2022, to February 20, 2024. Interventions: Participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1:1 ratio to standard care, bordered polyurethane (Tegaderm [3M]), integrated securement dressing (SorbaView SHIELD [Medline]), and integrated securement dressing with tissue adhesive (Secureport IV). One catheter was studied per patient. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was PIVC failure, defined as premature cessation of PIVC function for any reason prior to completion of planned treatment. Secondary outcomes were PIVC complications (any time dislodgement, occlusion, infiltration, partial dislodgement, extravasation, device leaking, phlebitis, pain), PIVC longevity, intervention acceptability (clinicians, participants, caregivers; 0-10 scale), and pain on removal (participants and caregivers; 0-10 scale relevant to age), adverse events, and health care costs. Results: A total of 383 patients (51% female; median age 36 [25th-75th percentiles, 22-72] months) were randomized 134 to standard care, 118 to integrated securement dressing, and 131 to integrated securement dressing with tissue adhesive. PIVC failure was lowest in integrated securement dressing with tissue adhesive (15 [12%]; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.26-0.84) compared with integrated securement dressing (24 [21%]; aHR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.47-1.28) and standard care (43 [34%]). Direct costs were significantly lower for integrated securement dressing with tissue adhesive (median, Australian dollars [A$], 312 [A$1 is equal to $0.65 US dollars]; IQR, A$302-A$380) and integrated securement dressing (median, A$303; IQR, A$294-A$465) compared with standard care (median, A$341; IQR, A$297-A$592; P ≤ .002) when considering the economic burden related to failure of devices. PIVC longevity and intervention acceptability were similar across all groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, PIVCs secured with integrated securement dressings and tissue adhesive, in comparison with standard care, bordered polyurethane dressings, were associated with significantly reduced PIVC failure, for children admitted to hospital via the emergency department. Further research should focus on implementation in inpatient units where prolonged dwell and reliable intravenous access is most needed. Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Identifier: ACTRN12619001026112.

Exploring clinicians' insertion experience with a new peripheral intravenous catheter in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals frequently introduce new medical devices. However, the process of clinicians adapting to these new vascular access devices has not been well explored. The study aims to explore clinicians' experience with the insertion of a new guidewire peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) introduced in the emergency department (ED) setting. METHODS: The study was conducted at two EDs in Queensland, Australia, utilising a qualitative explorative approach. Interviews were conducted with guidewire PIVC inserters, including ED doctors and nurses, and field notes were recorded by research nurses during insertions. Data analysis was performed using inductive content analysis, from which themes emerged. RESULTS: The study compiled interviews from 10 participants and field notes from 191 observation episodes. Five key themes emerged, including diverse experience, barriers related to the learning process, factors influencing insertion success, and recommendations to enhance clinicians' acceptance. These themes suggest that the key to successful adoption by clinicians lies in designing user-friendly devices that align with familiar insertion techniques, facilitating a smooth transfer of learning. CONCLUSION: Clinician adaptation to new devices is vital for optimal patient care. Emergency nurses and doctors prefer simplicity, safety, and familiarity when it comes to new devices. Providing comprehensive device training with diverse training resources, hands-on sessions, and continuous expert support, is likely to enhance clinician acceptance and the successful adoption of new devices in ED settings.