Incidence and risk factors for central venous access device failure in hospitalized adults: A multivariable analysis of 1892 catheters.

BACKGROUND: Central venous access devices (CVADs) allow intravenous therapy, haemodynamic monitoring and blood sampling but many fail before therapy completion. OBJECTIVE: To quantify CVAD failure and complications; and identify risk factors. DESIGNS, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Secondary analysis of multicentre randomised controlled trial including patients aged ≥16 years with a non-tunnelled CVAD (NTCVAD), peripherally-inserted central catheter (PICC) or tunnelled CVAD (TCVAD). Primary outcome was incidence of all-cause CVAD failure (central line-associated bloodstream infection [CLABSI], occlusion, accidental dislodgement, catheter fracture, thrombosis, pain). Secondary outcomes were CLABSI, occlusion and dislodgement. Cox regression was used to report time-to-event associations. RESULTS: In 1892 CVADs, all-cause failure occurred in 10.2% of devices: 49 NTCVADs (6.1%); 100 PICCs (13.2%); 44 TCVADs (13.4%). Failure rates for CLABSI, occlusion and dislodgement were 5.3%, 1.8%, and 1.7%, respectively. Independent CLABSI predictors were blood product administration through PICCs (hazard ratio (HR) 2.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24-5.55); and in TCVADs, one or two lumens, compared with three to four (HR 3.36, 95%CI 1.68-6.71), intravenous chemotherapy (HR 2.96, 95%CI 1.31-6.68), and diabetes (HR 3.25, 95%CI 1.40-7.57). Independent factors protective for CLABSI include antimicrobial NTCVADs (HR 0.23, 95%CI 0.08-0.63) and lipids in TCVADs (HR 0.32, 95%CI 0.14-0.72). NTCVADs inserted at another hospital (HR 7.06, 95%CI 1.48-33.7) and baseline infection in patients with PICCs (HR 2.72, 95%CI 1.08-6.83) were predictors for dislodgement. No independent occlusion predictors were found. Modifiable risk factors were identified for CVAD failure, which occurred for 1-in-10 catheters. Strict infection prevention measures and improved CVAD securement could reduce CLABSI and dislodgement risk.

Health-related quality of life and experience measures, to assess patients' experiences of peripheral intravenous catheters: a secondary data analysis.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are essential for successful administration of intravenous treatments. However, insertion failure and PIVC complications are common and negatively impact patients' health-outcomes and experiences. We aimed to assess whether generic (not condition-specific) quality of life and experience measures were suitable for assessing outcomes and experiences of patients with PIVCs. METHODS: We undertook a secondary analysis of data collected on three existing instruments within a large randomised controlled trial, conducted at two adult tertiary hospitals in Queensland, Australia. Instruments included the EuroQol Five Dimension - Five Level (EQ5D-5L), the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Treatment Satisfaction - General measure (FACIT-TS-G, eight items), and the Australian Hospital Patient Experience Question Set (AHPEQS, 12 items). Responses were compared against two clinical PIVC outcomes of interest: all-cause failure and multiple insertion attempts. Classic descriptives were reported for ceiling and floor effects. Regression analyses examined validity (discrimination). Standardised response mean and effect size (ES) assessed responsiveness (EQ5D-5L, only). RESULTS: In total, 685 participants completed the EQ5D-5L at insertion and 526 at removal. The FACIT-TS-G was completed by 264 and the AHPEQS by 262 participants. Two FACIT-TS-G items and one AHPEQS item demonstrated ceiling effect. Instruments overall demonstrated poor discrimination, however, all-cause PIVC failure was significantly associated with several individual items in the instruments (e.g., AHPEQS, 'unexpected physical and emotional harm'). EQ5D-5L demonstrated trivial (ES < 0.20) responsiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Initial investigation of an existing health-related quality of life measure (EQ5D-5L) and two patient-reported experience measures (FACIT-TS-G; AHPEQS) suggest they are inadequate (as a summary measure) to assess outcomes and experiences for patients with PIVCs. Reliable instruments are urgently needed to inform quality improvement and benchmark standards of care.

Peripheral intravenous catheter infection and failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous catheters are the most frequently used invasive device in nursing practice, yet are commonly associated with complications. We performed a systematic review to determine the prevalence of peripheral intravenous catheter infection and all-cause failure. METHODS: The Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched for observational studies and randomised controlled trials that reported peripheral intravenous catheter related infections or failure. The review was limited to English language and articles published from the year 2000. Pooled estimates were calculated with random-effects models. Meta-analysis of observation studies in epidemiology guidelines and the Cochrane process for randomised controlled trials were used to guide the review. Prospero registration number: CRD42022349956. FINDINGS: Our search retrieved 34,725 studies. Of these, 41 observational studies and 28 randomised controlled trials (478,586 peripheral intravenous catheters) met inclusion criteria. The pooled proportion of catheter-associated bloodstream infections was 0.028 % (95 % confidence interval (CI): 0.009-0.081; 38 studies), or 4.40 catheter-associated bloodstream infections per 100,000 catheter-days (20 studies, 95 % CI: 3.47-5.58). Local infection was reported in 0.150 % of peripheral intravenous catheters (95 % CI: 0.047-0.479, 30 studies) with an incidence rate of 65.1 per 100,000 catheter-days (16 studies; 95 % CI: 49.2-86.2). All cause peripheral intravenous catheter failure before treatment completion occurred in 36.4 % of catheters (95 % CI: 31.7-41.3, 53 studies) with an overall incidence rate of 4.42 per 100 catheter days (78,891 catheter days; 19 studies; 95 % CI: 4.27-4.57). INTERPRETATION: Peripheral intravenous catheter failure is a significant worldwide problem, affecting one in three catheters. Per peripheral intravenous catheter, infection occurrence was low, however, with over two billion catheters used globally each year, the absolute number of infections and associated burden remains high. Substantial and systemwide efforts are needed to address peripheral intravenous catheter infection and failure and the sequelae of treatment disruption, increased health costs and poor patient outcomes.

Comparing the use of midline catheters versus peripherally inserted central catheters for patients requiring peripherally compatible therapies: A pilot randomised controlled trial (the compact trial).

BACKGROUND: Midline catheter (MC) use has increased in acute-care settings, particularly for patients with difficult venous access or requiring peripherally compatible intravenous therapy for up-to 14 days. Our aim was to assess feasibility and generate clinical data comparing MCs with Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters (PICCs). METHODS: A two-arm parallel group pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT), comparing MCs with PICCs, was conducted in a large tertiary hospital in Queensland between September 2020 and January 2021. The primary outcome was study feasibility, measured against rates of eligibility (>75%), consent (>90%), attrition (<5%); protocol adherence (>90%) and missing data (<5%). The primary clinical outcome was all-cause device failure. RESULTS: In total, 25 patients were recruited. The median patient age was 59-62 years; most patients were overweight/obese, with ≥2 co-morbidities. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: The eligibility and protocol adherence criteria were not met; of 159 screened patients, only 25 (16%) were eligible, and three patients did not receive their allocated intervention post-randomisation (88% adherence). All-cause failure occurred in two patients allocated to MC (20%) and one PICC (8.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that a fully powered RCT testing MCs compared with PICCs is not currently feasible in our setting. We recommend a robust process evaluation before the introduction of MCs into clinical practice.

Integrated versus non-integrated peripheral intravenous catheters: a cross-sectional survey of nurse experiences.

BACKGROUND: Integrated peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) demonstrate clinical efficacy, however, device complexity and design differences may be a potential barrier to implementation. AIMS: To assess nurse acceptability of integrated PIVC systems. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was nested within a multicentre randomised controlled trial. One hundred nurses caring for patients with integrated and non-integrated PIVCs completed a 17-item survey about key differences between devices (eg function and appearance, perceived patient comfort and skin injuries). FINDINGS: Most nurses reported the integrated PIVC wings prevented device movement (80%), achieved patient comfort in areas of flexion (78%), and no patients developed skin injuries (100%). Nurses rated the ease of accessing and overall confidence using the integrated PIVC as significantly higher than the non-integrated design (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: The integrated PIVC received positive feedback from nurses and had few barriers to implementation.

Safety and efficacy of midline catheters versus peripheral intravenous catheters: A pilot randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite pervasive need for peripheral intravenous catheters, insertion is often difficult, and approximately two thirds fail prematurely. Midline catheters are an alternative long peripheral catheter, inserted in the upper arm, ideal for patients with difficult access. AIM: The aim of this study is to test feasibility of the protocol and compare the efficacy and safety of midline catheters to peripheral intravenous catheters. DESIGN: A parallel-group, pilot randomized controlled trial of adult medical/surgical hospitalized patients, from a single Australian referral hospital. METHODS: Participants with difficult vascular access (≤2 palpable veins) and/or anticipated ≥5 days of peripherally compatible intravenous therapy were recruited between May 2019 and March 2020. Participants were randomized to (1) peripheral intravenous catheter or (2) midline catheter. Primary feasibility outcome measured eligibility, recruitment, protocol adherence, retention and attrition. Primary clinical outcomes measured device insertion failure and post-insertion failure. RESULTS: In total, n = 143 participants (71 peripheral intravenous catheters and 72 midline catheters) were recruited; n = 139 were analysed. Most feasibility criteria were met. Peripheral intravenous catheters had shorter functional dwell time, with higher incidence of post-insertion failure compared to midline catheters. CONCLUSION: Midline catheters appear to be superior for patients with difficult vascular access or receiving prolonged intravenous therapy; a large, multi-centre trial to confirm findings is feasible.

A pilot randomized controlled trial of securement bundles to reduce peripheral intravenous catheter failure.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are ubiquitous in acute care settings however failure rates are unacceptably high, with around half failing before prescribed treatment is complete. The most effective dressing and securement option to prolong PIVC longevity is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine feasibility of conducting a definitive randomized controlled trial (RCT) investigating evidence-based securement bundles (medical adhesive tapes and supplementary securement products) to reduce PIVC failure. METHODS: In this pilot non-masked 3-group RCT, adults requiring a PIVC for >24 hrs were randomized to Standard care (bordered polyurethane dressing plus non-sterile tape over extension tubing), Securement Bundle 1 (two sterile tape strips over PIVC hub plus Standard care) or Securement Bundle 2 (Bundle 1 plus tubular bandage) with allocation concealed until study entry. EXCLUSIONS: laboratory-confirmed positive blood culture, current/high-risk of skin tear, or study product allergy. PRIMARY OUTCOME: feasibility (eligibility, recruitment, retention, protocol fidelity, participant/staff satisfaction). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: PIVC failure, PIVC dwell time, adverse skin events, PIVC colonization and cost. RESULTS: Of 109 randomized participants, 104 were included in final analyses. Feasibility outcomes were met, except eligibility criterion (79%). Absolute PIVC failure was 38.2% (13/34) for Bundle 2, 25% (9/36) for Bundle 1 and 23.5% (8/34) for Standard care. Incidence rate ratio for PIVC failure/1000 catheter days, compared to Standard care, was 1.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4-2.7) and 2.1 (95% CI 0.9-5.1) for Bundles 1 and 2, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A large RCT testing securement bundles is feasible, with adjustment to screening processes. Innovative dressing and securement solutions are needed to reduce unacceptable PIVC failure rates. Trial registration ACTRN12619000026123.

Peripheral intravenous catheters in the care of oncology and haematology patients.

Aim: To determine peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) characteristics, complications and risk factors among patients in cancer units. Methods: A secondary analysis of a global, cross-sectional study (127 hospitals in 24 countries). Participants (≥18 years) admitted to cancer units were assessed once for PIVC characteristics and the presence of complications. Variables included patient demographics, device characteristics, treatment details, and device and/or site complications. PIVC characteristics were presented using qualitative descriptors; mixed-effects logistic regression models determined risk factors for PIVC complications. Results: In total, 1,807 participants (1,812 PIVCs) were included; 12% (n=215) of PIVCs presented with complications. Risk factors included: insertion by doctors; insertion in ED and ambulance/other locations; poor PIVC dressing integrity; dwell time ≥49 hours; and administration of colloids/blood products and antiemetics. Conclusions: At least one in ten PIVCs in cancer units present with complications; regular PIVC assessment and improved dressing integrity is likely to reduce risk and improve outcomes.

Evaluating methods for the use and decontamination of needleless connectors: A qualitative inquiry.

BACKGROUND: Needleless connectors (NCs) are essential devices designed to provide safe, needle-free connection between venous access devices, syringes and infusions. There is a variety of designs, and associated decontamination products and practices; the resulting confusion can cause detrimental patient outcomes. This study aimed to explore nurses' attitudes, techniques, and practices around the use and decontamination of NCs in clinical practice. METHODS: Qualitative inquiry was conducted with seven focus groups of 4-6 participants each in the cancer and surgical units of a large tertiary hospital in Australia between January and March 2019. Participants comprised nurses who had taken part in a recent clinical trial of NC decontamination. Focus group sessions were recorded, transcribed and synthesised using content analysis. RESULTS: Seven focus groups were conducted (total, N = 30 participants), lasting 16-20 min. Six major themes were identified surrounding needleless connector use and decontamination: 'safety and utility'; 'terminology and technological understanding'; 'clinical practice determinants'; 'decontamination procedures and influencers'; 'education and culture'; and 'research and innovation'. CONCLUSION: The participants articulated positive attitudes towards needleless connector use for needle-stick and infection prevention, however rationales for care and maintenance practices demonstrated limited understanding of guidelines (e.g., disinfection time) and specific NC function (e.g., positive, negative pressure). The findings indicated the need for targeted, standardised needleless connector education, to enhance staff confidence, improve consistency of care and ensure patient safety.

Securing jugular central venous access devices with dressings fixed to a liquid adhesive in an intensive care unit population: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Central venous access devices (CVADs) can have high rates of failure due to dressing-related complications. CVADs placed in the internal jugular vein are at particular risk of dressing failure-related complications, including catheter-associated bloodstream infection and medical adhesive-related skin injury. Application of Mastisol liquid adhesive (MLA) may reduce CVAD dressing failure and associated complications, by reducing the frequency of dressing changes. The aim of this study is to investigate whether, in an intensive care unit (ICU) population, standard dressing care with or without the addition of MLA, improves internal jugular CVAD dressing adherence. METHODS: This two-arm, parallel group randomised controlled trial will be conducted in three Australian ICUs. A total of 160 patients (80 per group) will be enrolled in accordance with study inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients will be randomised to receive either (1) 'standard' (in accordance with local hospital policy) CVAD dressings (control) or (2) 'standard' dressings in addition to MLA (intervention). Patients will be followed from the time of CVAD insertion to 48 h after CVAD removal. The primary outcome is 'dressing failure' defined as requirement for initial CVAD dressing to be replaced prior to seven days (routine replacement). DISCUSSION: This study will be the first randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of MLA in the adult intensive care unit population and will also provide crucial data for patient-important outcomes such as infection and skin injury. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12621001012864 . Registered on 2 August 2021.

Awareness of Peripheral Intravenous Catheters Among Nurses, Physicians, and Students.

OBJECTIVES: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are frequently used to meet patients' short-term health care needs. However, many PIVCs are not promptly removed at the completion of treatment, placing patients at risk of avoidable harm from serious complications including local and systemic infection. This study aims to report the proportion and accuracy of health care staff/students awareness of the presence of their patient's PIVC. METHODS: We asked staff/students to recall the presence or absence of a PIVC in a patient under their care, as well as details of the date of insertion and PIVC location. We recorded concordance of responses with direct observations. To achieve this, face-to-face interviews were conducted with clinical staff/students at 2 adult hospitals. RESULTS: Overall, 90% (n = 216) of staff responses (94% of nurses, 100% of nursing students, 76% of medical staff) correctly identified the presence/absence of a PIVC. Clinicians correctly identified the PIVC location 55% (n = 71) of the time. CONCLUSIONS: Health care services must recognize the implications of this lack of awareness and implement and evaluate tailored quality improvement efforts to address this.

Intravenous antimicrobial administration through peripheral venous catheters - establishing risk profiles from an analysis of 5252 devices.

INTRODUCTION: Peripheral venous catheters (PVCs) are used to administer antimicrobials, but many fail prior to completion of therapy. While some antimicrobials are known to increase the PVC failure rate, risk profiles for many are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To synthesize data from prospective PVC studies conducted between 2013 and 2019 to determine associations between common antimicrobials and PVC failure. METHODS: A secondary analysis was undertaken of seven randomized controlled trials and two prospective cohort studies from three quaternary hospitals (two adult and one paediatric) in Australia between 2013 and 2019. The primary outcome was PVC failure due to vessel injury (occlusion, infiltration or extravasation) or irritation (pain or phlebitis). Associations between antimicrobial use and PVC failure were explored using multi-variable Cox regression. RESULTS: In total, 5252 PVCs (4478 patients) were analysed; vessel injury and irritations occurred in 19% and 11% of all PVCs, respectively. Vessel injury was significantly associated with cefepime hydrochloride [hazard ratio (HR) 2.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.44-4.34], ceftazidime pentahydrate (HR 1.91, 95% CI 1.11-3.31), flucloxacillin sodium (HR 1.84, 95% CI 1.45-2.33), lincomycin hydrochloride (HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.10-2.52) and vancomycin hydrochloride (HR 1.73, 95% CI 1.25-2.40). Irritation was significantly associated with flucloxacillin sodium (HR 2.58, 95% CI 1.96-3.40). CONCLUSIONS: This study identified several antimicrobials associated with increased PVC failure, including some that were already known to be associated and some that had not been identified previously. Research is needed urgently to determine superior modes of delivery (e.g. dilution, infusion time, device type) that may prevent PVC failure.

Patient-reported outcome and experience measures for peripheral venous catheters: a scoping review protocol.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this scoping review is to conduct a systematic search and establish the current state of evidence for tools and instruments used to measure self-reported outcomes and experiences, including satisfaction scores, specifically for peripheral venous access devices (PVADs). METHODS: A systematic search of the literature will be conducted using medical databases including: MEDLINE (Ovid); CINAHL (EbscoHost); PubMed (NCBI); and Scopus (Elsevier); Google (Scholar); and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Experimental, and observational studies, published in English, after 1990 will be eligible for inclusion if they: consist of (i) a survey, instrument or tool that is designed to (ii) collect outcome, experience and/or satisfaction data, relating to PVAD insertion, care, maintenance and/or removal, among (iii) adult and paediatric participants. CONCLUSIONS: PVAD-specific patient-reported outcome and experience measures are necessary for researchers, clinicians and policy decision makers to explore more thoroughly the quality of PVAD care provided, and further inform health economic analyses in the context of quality improvement interventions for vascular access devices. This scoping review will establish the existence-or paucity-of instruments to measure these selfreported outcomes and experiences of PVADs, in order to guide value-based healthcare delivery into the future.

Peripheral intravenous catheter failure: A secondary analysis of risks from 11,830 catheters.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous catheters are an essential medical device which are prone to complications and failure. OBJECTIVES: Identify patient, provider and device risk factors associated with all-cause peripheral intravenous catheter failure as well as individual complications: phlebitis, infiltration/occlusion, and dislodgement to improve patient outcomes. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of twelve prospective studies performed between 2008 and 2020. SETTINGS: Australian metropolitan and regional hospitals including one paediatric hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were from medical, surgical, haematology, and oncology units. METHODS: Multilevel mixed-effects parametric survival regression was used to identify factors associated with all-cause peripheral intravenous catheter failure, phlebitis, occlusion/infiltration, and dislodgement. We studied patient (e.g., age, gender), device (e.g., gauge), and provider (e.g., inserting clinician) variables. Stepwise regression involved clinically and p<0.20 significant variables entered into the multivariable model. Results were expressed as hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI); p<0.01 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Of 11,830 peripheral intravenous catheters (8,200 participants) failure occurred in 36% (n = 4,263). Occlusion/infiltration incidence was 23% (n = 2,767), phlebitis 12% (n = 1,421), and dislodgement 7% (n = 779) of catheters. Patient factors significantly associated with failure and complications were: female gender (phlebitis; (HR 1.98, 95% CI 1.72-2.27), (infiltration/occlusion; HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.33-1.58), (failure; HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.26-1.46); and each year increase in age (phlebitis; 0.99 HR, 95% CI 0.98-0.99), (failure; 0.99 HR, 95% CI 0.99-0.99). The strongest provider risk factor was intravenous antibiotics (infiltration/occlusion; HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.27-1.53), (phlebitis; HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.18-1.56), (failure; HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.17-1.36). Catheters inserted by vascular access teams were less likely to dislodge (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.42-0.67). Device risk factors most associated with all-cause failure were wrist/hand (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.23-1.46), antecubital fossa peripheral intravenous catheters (HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.16-1.44) and 22/24 gauge (HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.12-1.45) catheters. CONCLUSION: Factors identified, including the protective aspect of vascular access team insertion, and high catheter failure associated with intravenous antibiotic administration, will allow targeted updates of peripheral intravenous catheter guidelines and models of care.

Effect of infusion set replacement intervals on catheter-related bloodstream infections (RSVP): a randomised, controlled, equivalence (central venous access device)-non-inferiority (peripheral arterial catheter) trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of infusion set use to prevent life-threatening catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) is unclear. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and costs of 7-day (intervention) versus 4-day (control) infusion set replacement to prevent CRBSI in patients with central venous access devices (tunnelled cuffed, non-tunnelled, peripherally inserted, and totally implanted) and peripheral arterial catheters. METHODS: We did a randomised, controlled, assessor-masked trial at ten Australian hospitals. Our hypothesis was CRBSI equivalence for central venous access devices and non-inferiority for peripheral arterial catheters (both 2% margin). Adults and children with expected greater than 24 h central venous access device-peripheral arterial catheter use were randomly assigned (1:1; stratified by hospital, catheter type, and intensive care unit or ward) by a centralised, web-based service (concealed before allocation) to infusion set replacement every 7 days, or 4 days. This included crystalloids, non-lipid parenteral nutrition, and medication infusions. Patients and clinicians were not masked, but the primary outcome (CRBSI) was adjudicated by masked infectious diseases physicians. The analysis was modified intention to treat (mITT). This study is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12610000505000 and is complete. FINDINGS: Between May 30, 2011, and Dec, 9, 2016, from 6007 patients assessed, we assigned 2944 patients to 7-day (n=1463) or 4-day (n=1481) infusion set replacement, with 2941 in the mITT analysis. For central venous access devices, 20 (1·78%) of 1124 patients (7-day group) and 16 (1·46%) of 1097 patients (4-day group) had CRBSI (absolute risk difference [ARD] 0·32%, 95% CI -0·73 to 1·37). For peripheral arterial catheters, one (0·28%) of 357 patients in the 7-day group and none of 363 patients in the 4-day group had CRBSI (ARD 0·28%, -0·27% to 0·83%). There were no treatment-related adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Infusion set use can be safely extended to 7 days with resultant cost and workload reductions. FUNDING: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

A pilot randomised controlled trial of dressing and securement methods to prevent arterial catheter failure in intensive care.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients in an intensive care setting often require arterial catheters for blood pressure monitoring and arterial blood collection. Arterial catheter failure, which manifests in both mechanical and infective forms, remains common. Dressing and securement inadequacies may impact this failure; however, the best method for dressing and securing arterial catheters is yet to be determined. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to establish the feasibility of a definitive randomised controlled trial comparing methods for dressing and securing arterial catheters and to prevent device failure in an adult intensive care setting. METHODS: A pilot, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial was conducted between April 2017 and June 2018. Patients receiving treatment in two adult intensive care units (Queensland, Australia) were eligible for inclusion and were allocated to receive either (i) an integrated securement dressing or (ii) a simple polyurethane dressing (with gauze/foam), applied to their newly inserted arterial catheters. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were (i) feasibility (defined by pre-established criteria: patient eligibility, consent, protocol adherence, retention, and staff acceptability) and (ii) all-cause arterial catheter failure (a composite of local and bloodstream infection, occlusion, dislodgement, infiltration/extravasation, arterial inflammation, thrombosis, and/or inaccurate trace). Secondary outcomes included: failure type, dwell time, dressing adhesion, adverse event profiles, and staff acceptability. RESULTS: In total, 109 patients were studied (n = 53 integrated securement dressing; n = 56 simple polyurethane). The feasibility criterion was met by most patients (including rates of consent [86%], protocol adherence [93%], and retention [100%]); however, the criteria for patient eligibility were not met (73%). All-cause device failure did not differ significantly between the integrated securement device group (n = 12/53, 23%) and the simple polyurethane group (n = 6/56, 11%) (hazard ratio = 2.39, 95% confidence interval = 0.89-6.37, p = 0.083). CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate a larger study is feasible, with minor alterations to recruitment methods required. Arterial catheter failure remains unacceptably common; further research to determine optimal dressing/securement practices is urgently needed.

Inherent and modifiable risk factors for peripheral venous catheter failure during cancer treatment: a prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: To identify modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors for peripheral intravenous catheter (PIV) failure among patients requiring intravenous treatment for oncology and haematology conditions. METHODS: A single-centre prospective cohort study was conducted between October 2017 and February 2019. Adult in-patients requiring a PIV for therapy were prospectively recruited from two cancer units at a tertiary hospital in Queensland, Australia. The primary outcome was a composite of complications leading to PIV failure (local and bloodstream infection; occlusion; infiltration/extravasation; leakage; dislodgement; and/or phlebitis). Secondary outcomes were (i) PIV dwell time; (ii) insertion and (iii) failure of a CVAD; (iv) adverse events; (v) length of hospital stay. Outcomes were investigated using Bayesian multivariable linear regression modelling and survival analysis. RESULTS: Of 200 participants, 396 PIVs were included. PIV failure incidence was 34.9%; the most common failure type was occlusion/infiltration (n = 74, 18.7%), then dislodgement (n = 33, 8.3%), and phlebitis (n = 30, 7.6%). While several patient and treatment risk factors were significant in univariable modelling, in the final multivariable model, only the use of non-sterile tape (external to the primary dressing) was significantly associated with decreased PIV dislodgement (hazard ratio 0.06, 95% confidence interval 0.01, 0.48; p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: PIV failure rates among patients receiving cancer treatment are high, the sequelae of which may include delayed treatment and infection. Larger studies on risk factors and interventions to prevent PIV failure in this population are needed; however, the use of secondary securements (such as non-sterile tape) to provide further securement to the primary PIV dressing is particularly important. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Study methods were registered prospectively with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry on the 27th March 2017 (ACTRN12617000438358); https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=372191&isReview=true.

Smile - Secure my intravenous line effectively: A pilot randomised controlled trial of peripheral intravenous catheter securement in paediatrics.

AIM: Evaluate the feasibility of an efficacy randomised control trial (RCT) of paediatric peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) securement to prevent failure without resultant skin damage. METHODS: A 3-arm, pilot RCT in an Australian paediatric hospital. Random assignment of 330 children to receive (i) bordered polyurethane dressing (BPU) + non-sterile foam (NSF), (ii) integrated securement dressing (ISD) + sterile foam (SF), or (iii) tissue adhesive (TA)+ NSF. Primary outcomes were feasibility and PIVC failure. Secondary outcomes included: skin/bloodstream infection; occlusion; infiltration; dislodgement; phlebitis; dwell; serious adverse events; acceptability and microbial colonisation of catheter tips, wound site, and foam. RESULTS: Most feasibility outcomes were confirmed; 98% of eligible patients consented, 96% received their allocated dressing and no patients were lost to follow up. Eligilbility feasibility (58%) was not met. 11 randomised patients did not require a PIVC. Of 319 patients receiving a PIVC (20,716 PIVC-hours), a significant reduction in PIVC failure was demonstrated with ISD, 31/107 (29%, p = 0.017) compared to BPU, 47/105 (45%). Although not statistically significant, compared to BPU, TA 34/107 (32%, p = 0.052) was associated with less PIVC failure. On Cox regression, no securement intervention significantly reduced PIVC failure. Older age (HR 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-0.96; p = <0.01), no infection at baseline (HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.34-0.78) and insertion by vascular access specialist (HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.26-0.64) were significantly associated with reduced failure (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: ISD and TA had reduced PIVC failure compared to BPU. A large efficacy trial to test statistical differences is feasible and needed.

A systematic review of central-line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) diagnostic reliability and error.

OBJECTIVE: To establish the reliability of the application of National Health and Safety Network (NHSN) central-line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) criteria within established reporting systems internationally. DESIGN: Diagnostic-test accuracy systematic review. METHODS: We conducted a search of Medline, SCOPUS, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL (EbscoHost), and PubMed (NCBI). Cohort studies were eligible for inclusion if they compared publicly reported CLABSI rates and were conducted by independent and expertly trained reviewers using NHSN/Centers for Disease Control (or equivalent) criteria. Two independent reviewers screened, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the QUADAS 2 tool. Sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values were analyzed. RESULTS: A systematic search identified 1,259 publications; 9 studies were eligible for inclusion (n = 7,160 central lines). Publicly reported CLABSI rates were more likely to be underestimated (7 studies) than overestimated (2 studies). Specificity ranged from 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-0.81) to 0.99 (95% CI, 0.99-1.00) and sensitivity ranged from 0.42 (95% CI, 0.15-0.72) to 0.88 (95% CI, 0.77-0.95). Four studies, which included a consecutive series of patients (whole cohort), reported CLABSI incidence between 9.8% and 20.9%, and absolute CLABSI rates were underestimated by 3.3%-4.4%. The risk of bias was low to moderate in most included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest consistent underestimation of true CLABSI incidence within publicly reported rates, weakening the validity and reliability of surveillance measures. Auditing, education, and adequate resource allocation is necessary to ensure that surveillance data are accurate and suitable for benchmarking and quality improvement measures over time. REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered with International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO ID CRD42015021989; June 7, 2015). https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID%3dCRD42015021989.

Nurses' decision-making about intravenous administration set replacement: A qualitative study.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore nurses' decision-making regarding intravenous administration set replacement for vascular access device infusions in paediatric and adult clinical settings. BACKGROUND: Intravenous administration sets are routinely replaced at regular intervals in clinical practice with the goal of preventing catheter-related bloodstream infection; however, emerging evidence is challenging traditional hang-time durations. Nurses' perceptions and contextual factors affecting decision-making for administration set replacement have not been assessed previously. DESIGN: Qualitative study using focus groups with contextualism methodology and inductive analysis. METHOD: During November-December 2016, eight semi-structured focus groups were conducted with 38 nurses at two metropolitan hospitals in Queensland, Australia. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Two authors independently reviewed transcripts and extracted significant statements using Braun and Clarke's 7-step method of thematic analysis. The COREQ checklist provided a framework to report the study methods, context, findings, analysis and interpretation. RESULTS: Five key themes emerged from the analysis: (a) infection prevention, (b) physical safety, (c) patient preference, (d) clinical knowledge and beliefs, and (e) workload. Administration set replacement can be a complex task, particularly when patients have multiple infusions and incompatible medications. Nurses drew on perceptions of patient preference, as well as previous experience, knowledge of peer experts and local policies, to aid their decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses use clinical reasoning to balance patient safety and preferences with competing workplace demands when undertaking administration set replacement. Nurses rely on previous experience, hospital and medication manufacturer policies, and peer experts to guide their practice. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Nurses at times deviate from clinical guidelines in the interests of patient acuity, nurses' experience and workload. The findings of this study indicate nurses also balance considerations of patient preference and safety with these competing demands.