European recommendations on the proper indication and use of peripheral venous access devices (the ERPIUP consensus): A WoCoVA project.

Since several innovations have recently changed the criteria of choice and management of peripheral venous access (new devices, new techniques of insertion, new recommendations for maintenance), the WoCoVA Foundation (WoCoVA = World Conference on Vascular Access) has developed an international Consensus with the following objectives: to propose a clear and useful classification of the currently available peripheral venous access devices; to clarify the proper indication of central versus peripheral venous access; discuss the indications of the different peripheral venous access devices (short peripheral cannulas vs long peripheral cannulas vs midline catheters); to define the proper techniques of insertion and maintenance that should be recommended today. To achieve these purposes, WoCoVA have decided to adopt a European point of view, considering some relevant differences of terminology between North America and Europe in this area of venous access and the need for a common basis of understanding among the experts recruited for this project. The ERPIUP Consensus (ERPIUP = European Recommendations for Proper Indication and Use of Peripheral venous access) was designed to offer systematic recommendations for clinical practice, covering every aspect of management of peripheral venous access devices in the adult patient: indication, insertion, maintenance, prevention and treatment of complications, removal. Also, our purpose was to improve the standardization of the terminology, bringing clarity of definition, and classification.

Use of Short Peripheral Intravenous Catheters: Characteristics, Management, and Outcomes Worldwide.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) use in health care is common worldwide. Failure of PIVCs is also common, resulting in premature removal and replacement. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the characteristics, management practices, and outcomes of PIVCs internationally. SETTING/PATIENTS: Cross-sectional study. Hospitalized patients from rural, regional, and metropolitan areas internationally. MEASUREMENTS: Hospital, device, and inserter characteristics were collected along with assessment of the catheter insertion site. PIVC use in different geographic regions was compared. RESULTS: We reviewed 40,620 PIVCs in 51 countries. PIVCs were used primarily for intravenous medication (n = 28,571, 70%) and predominantly inserted in general wards (n = 22,167, 55%). Two-thirds of all devices were placed in non-recommended sites such as the hand, wrist, or antecubital veins. Nurses inserted most PIVCs (n = 28,575, 71%); although there was wide regional variation (26% to 97%). The prevalence of iIn this study, we found that many PIVCs were placed in areas of flexion, were symptomatic or idle, had suboptimal dressings, or lacked adequate documentation. This suggests inconsistency between recommended management guidelines for PIVCs and current practice.dle PIVCs was 14% (n = 5,796). Overall, 10% (n = 4,204) of PIVCs were painful to the patient or otherwise symptomatic of phlebitis; a further 10% (n = 3,879) had signs of PIVC malfunction; and 21% of PIVC dressings were suboptimal (n = 8,507). Over one-third of PIVCs (n = 14,787, 36%) had no documented daily site assessment and half (n = 19,768, 49%) had no documented date and time of insertion. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that many PIVCs were placed in areas of flexion, were symptomatic or idle, had suboptimal dressings, or lacked adequate documentation. This suggests inconsistency between recommended management guidelines for PIVCs and current practice.

International prevalence of the use of peripheral intravenous catheters.

Over a billion peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are inserted each year in hospitalized patients worldwide. However, international data on prevalence and management of these devices are lacking. The study assessed the prevalence of PIVCs and their management practices across different regions of the world. This global audit involved 14 hospitals across 13 countries, with 479 patients screened for the presence of a PIVC. We found 59% of patients had at least 1 PIVC in place, and 16% had other types of vascular devices. We also found that overall, 25% of patients had no vascular device in place. The majority of PIVCs were inserted by nursing staff or a specialist team. The prevalence of idle PIVCs in place with no fluid or medication orders was 16%, and 12% of PIVCs had at least 1 symptom of phlebitis.

Skin antisepsis: using 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol.

The insertion of peripheral and central venous access devices carries a high risk of healthcare-associated infection. One of the main risks of this procedure is the introduction of microorganisms from the patient's own skin. To combat this, and to reduce the rates of healthcare-associated infection, effective skin antisepsis using 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) in 70% isopropyl alcohol (IPA) has been recommended by the epic2: National Evidence-Based Guidelines for Preventing Healthcare-Associated Infections in NHS Hospitals in England (Pratt et al, 2007). This article discribes the introduction of 2% CHG in 70% IPA into the United Kingdom healthcare market and gives a discussion of the recommendations of epic2 (Pratt et al, 2007). The article identifies the correct use of 2%CHG 70% IPA solution, by detailing the variety of products and applications now available. It also clarifies their correct application and use to enable Trusts to provide a high standard of infection control and reduce healthcare-associated infection. It highlights the potential incorrect use of the available products due to cost pressures within the healthcare setting.