Utility of color flow Doppler ultrasound to identify peripheral intravenous catheter position in adult surgical patients

Objective: To evaluate color flow Doppler flow ultrasound compared to standard clinical techniques, to detect the intravascular position of peripheral intravenous catheters in adult surgical patients. Methods: A prospective study was conducted in adult (>18 years old) patients scheduled to undergo elective surgery. Peripheral intravenous catheter position was evaluated with standard clinical techniques (free flow of fluid from a hanging bag, easy saline injection, and aspiration of blood), and with color flow Doppler ultrasound proximal to the insertion site to identify intravascular catheter position. Comparative test performance was carried out. Results: In total, 174 patients were enrolled. The venous catheter was deemed to be intravascular in 92.53% ( n = 161) and 90.23% ( n = 157) based on clinical evaluation and color flow Doppler, respectively ( p = 0.206). Moderate to substantial agreement between the two approaches was found. Cohen’s kappa was 0.64 (95% CI 0.43–0.83). Specificity of clinical judgment to detect catheter extravascular position was only 58.82%, when the color flow Doppler technique was set as the gold standard. Free flow from a hanging bag method showed the best agreement with color flow Doppler to determine intravascular position of a catheter ( p = 0.3173, kappa = 0.68), with sensitivity of 98.09% and specificity of 64.71%. Conclusion: Color flow Doppler is a specific tool complementary to sensitive clinical indicators to detect peripheral venous catheter infiltration. The ability of color flow Doppler to accurately determine the position of a peripheral venous catheter depends on experience and familiarity with the tool by providers, who can master the technique with education and training.

Download Full-text

Effectiveness of transparent film dressing for peripheral intravenous catheter

The Journal of Vascular Access ◽

10.1177/1129729820927238 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 112972982092723

Author(s):

Selma Atay ◽

Fatma Yilmaz Kurt

Keyword(s):

Dwell Time ◽

Venous Catheter ◽

University Hospital ◽

Control Group ◽

Transparent Film ◽

Patient Identification ◽

Intravenous Catheter ◽

Chi Square ◽

Peripheral Venous Catheter ◽

Peripheral Intravenous Catheter

Background: The intravenous applications are the most common type of such interventions. It is underlined that in cases where the peripheral intravenous catheter is not properly secured in place, even a minor movement inside the vein would result in injury of vein. Objective: The insertion of peripheral intravenous catheter is a common practice. This is a randomized controlled prospective study aiming at investigating the effectiveness of use of transparent film dressing for peripheral intravenous catheter. Methods: The universe of this study included inpatients in the Internal Diseases clinic of a University Hospital, and the sample included a total of 110 peripheral intravenous catheters that were calculated by power analysis. The patient identification form, the peripheral venous catheter and treatment information form, and the visual infusion phlebitis identification scale were used to collect data. The forms were completed by the investigators on the basis of daily observations. The data were assessed by the percentage, chi-square test, and logistic regression analysis via the software SPSS 20.00. Results: The individuals in the study group and the control group included in the sample are comparable in terms of gender, having/not having a chronic disease, the site of peripheral intravenous catheter, use of antibiotics, intravenous fluid therapy, and mean age. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups. There was a significant relationship between the dwell time for the catheter and development of any complications and the groups. Conclusion: The use of transparent film dressing for insertion of peripheral intravenous catheter can be recommended as it increases the dwell time for the catheter and reduces incidence of complications.

Download Full-text

Long peripheral catheters: Is it time to address the confusion?

The Journal of Vascular Access ◽

10.1177/1129729818819730 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 20 (5) ◽

pp. 457-460 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Kirby R Qin ◽

Ramesh M Nataraja ◽

Maurizio Pacilli

Keyword(s):

Venous Catheter ◽

Seldinger Technique ◽

Ultrasound Guided ◽

Intravenous Catheter ◽

Upper Arm ◽

Peripheral Venous Catheter ◽

Long Line ◽

Peripheral Catheter ◽

Peripheral Intravenous Catheter ◽

Polyurethane Catheter

Long peripheral catheters are 6–15 cm peripheral dwelling catheters that are inserted via a catheter-over-needle or direct Seldinger (catheter-over-guidewire) technique. When inserted in the upper extremity, the distal tip terminates before reaching the axilla, typically no further than the mid-upper arm. This is distinct from a midline catheter, which is inserted via a modified Seldinger technique and terminates at the axilla. The nomenclature of this catheter is confusing and inconsistent. We have identified over a dozen labels in the literature, all describing the same device. These include ‘15 cm catheter’, ‘catheter inserted with a Seldinger method’, ‘extended dwell/midline peripheral catheter’, ‘Leaderflex line’, ‘long catheter’, ‘long IV catheter’, ‘long peripheral cannula’, ‘long peripheral catheter’, ‘long peripheral venous catheter’, ‘long polyurethane catheter’, ‘midline cannula’, ‘mini-midline’, ‘peripheral intravenous catheter’, ‘Seldinger catheter’, ‘short midline catheter’, ‘short long line’ and ‘ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheter’. The purpose of this editorial is to achieve some level of standardisation in the nomenclature of this device. Is it time to address the confusion? We suggest adopting ‘long peripheral catheter’. However, we encourage discussion and debate in reaching a consensus.

Download Full-text

Hiding in Plain Sight: Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Infections

Critical Care Nurse ◽

10.4037/ccn2020439 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 40 (5) ◽

pp. 57-66

Author(s):

Barb Nickel

Keyword(s):

Bloodstream Infections ◽

Venous Catheter ◽

Current Evidence ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Intravenous Catheter ◽

Central Venous ◽

Peripheral Venous Catheter ◽

Peripheral Intravenous Catheter ◽

Catheter Infections ◽

Intravenous Catheters

Topic This article presents an overview of the burden of peripheral intravenous catheter infections and current evidence-based recommendations for prevention. Clinical Relevance Peripheral intravenous catheters are ubiquitous in most health care settings, fostering an acceptance of the peripheral intravenous catheter as benign and inevitable. This device, however, is far from benign, with reported failure rates as high as 90% from complications such as infection and phlebitis. Although reported rates of bloodstream infection related to peripheral intravenous catheters are much lower than those attributed to central venous catheters, the exponentially higher use of peripheral intravenous catheters indicates that the absolute number of peripheral venous catheter–related bloodstream infections is likely as high as and may surpass the number of central venous catheter–related bloodstream infections, with significant associated morbidity and mortality. Purpose of Paper Sustained improvements in outcomes related to peripheral intravenous catheters will depend on recognition of the root causes of failure and increased commitment to practice patterns consistent with infusion therapy standards of practice, effective education about peripheral intravenous catheters, accurate documentation of all aspects of peripheral intravenous catheter management, and consistent surveillance of patient outcomes related to peripheral intravenous catheters. Content Covered This article reviews the significant burden of peripheral intravenous catheter infections, barriers to effective peripheral intravenous catheter management, and current evidence-based recommendations to prevent this source of patient harm.

Download Full-text

TO COMPARE CENTRAL VENOUS CATHETER AND PERIPHERAL INTRAVENOUS CATHETER IN PATIENTS OF LAPAROTOMY: AN OBSERVATIONAL COMPARATIVE STUDY

International Journal of Medical and Biomedical Studies ◽

10.32553/ijmbs.v4i11.1528 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 4 (11) ◽

Author(s):

Ketan. P. Prajapati ◽

Rajan B Somani ◽

Soham V. Shah

Keyword(s):

Central Venous Catheter ◽

Life Span ◽

Complication Rate ◽

Venous Catheter ◽

Intravenous Catheter ◽

Central Venous ◽

Peripheral Intravenous Catheter ◽

Group A ◽

The Mean ◽

Group B

Background: The laparotomy is one of the major surgery require ample amount of intravenous fluids administration, blood transfusion ,and sometime parental nutrition, repeated blood sampling to monitor patients condition. These all things fulfilled by either use of peripheral intravenous catheter or central venous catheter. Both of these intravenous catheters are compared on basis of their life span, hospital stay of the patient, and their complications to evaluate the efficacy of both in patients undergoing laparotomy. Methods: An observational comparative study was conducted among 50 patients of laparotomy in the department of general surgery, sir t hospital Bhavnagar. All patients were randomly assigned to two groups A and B. Patients of group A were subjected to central venous catheter and patients of group b were subjected to peripheral intravenous catheter. Results: The mean of hospital stay of patients in group a was 20.4 (± 4.9) and group b was 15.4 (± 6.12) . The mean life span of catheter was 18.8 ± 4.25 days in group A and 6.04 ± 1.947 days in group B. Rate of major complication in group A was 12% as compare to group B having 40% complication rate. Rate of intermediate complication in group A was 20% as compare to group B having 72% complication rate. . Rate of minor complication in group A was 8% as compare to group B having 56% complication rate. Rate of overall complication in group A was 28% as compare to group B having 72% complication rate. Conclusion: Life span of central venous catheter is greater as compare to the peripheral intravenous catheter and rate of complications is more in patients with peripheral intravenous catheter. Keywords: Central Venous Catheter, Peripheral Intravenous Catheter, Laparotomy

Download Full-text

Ultrasonographic Detection of Micro-Bubbles in the Right Atrium to Confirm Peripheral Venous Catheter Position in Children

Critical Care Medicine ◽

10.1097/ccm.0000000000003916 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 47 (10) ◽

pp. e836-e840

Author(s):

Jun Takeshita ◽

Yasufumi Nakajima ◽

Atsushi Kawamura ◽

Masashi Taniguchi ◽

Yoshiyuki Shimizu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Right Atrium ◽

Venous Catheter ◽

Catheter Position ◽

Peripheral Venous Catheter ◽

The Right

Download Full-text

The Biochemical parameters in venous blood sampling by direct venipuncture and peripheral intravenous catheter

Journal of Contemporary Medical Sciences ◽

10.22317/jcms.v6i5.829 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 6 (5) ◽

Author(s):

Fatemeh Jaafaraghaei ◽

Monireh Aghajany-Nasab ◽

Mahsa Aghaei ◽

Nazila Javadi pashaki ◽

Ehsan Kazemnejhad Leili

Keyword(s):

Venous Blood ◽

Venous Catheter ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Blood Sampling ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Sodium Potassium ◽

Blood Samples ◽

Peripheral Venous Catheter ◽

Peripheral Intravenous Catheter ◽

Sodium And Potassium

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the results of some biochemical values in venous blood samples obtained by direct venipuncture (DV) and peripheral venous catheter (PVC). Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 78 hospitalized patients in different wards of Poor-Sina Medical and Educational Center of Rasht in 2017 were divided into three equal groups, including patients who were treated with normal saline and dextrose saline and those who did not receive this solution. Two separate blood samples were obtained from each patient, one from PVC and the other from DV. The levels of sodium, potassium, creatinine and blood urea nitrogen (BUN) were measured and compared. Results: Difference of PVC with DV in BUN was generally 0.32±3.18 mg/dl; creatinine, sodium and potassium were 0.02±0.12 mg/dl, 1.00±2.49 mEq/L and 0.15±0.48 mEq/L respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between the two methods in relation to BUN and creatinine (P = 0.377 and P = 0.149, respectively), but significant differences in levels of sodium and potassium were observed between the two blood sampling methods (P = 0.001 and P = 0.008, respectively). Conclusion: According to the results of this study and other studies, PVC can be used to measure BUN and creatinine, not so for sodium and potassium. For other parameters, further investigation is needed.

Download Full-text

Preventing Peripheral Intravenous Line Infections: Recommendations for Healthcare Facilities

Journal of the Association for Vascular Access ◽

10.2309/java.14-4-3 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 14 (4) ◽

pp. 187-190 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Nancy Moureau

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Bloodstream Infections ◽

Venous Catheter ◽

The United States ◽

Central Line ◽

Intravenous Catheter ◽

Central Lines ◽

Healthcare Facilities ◽

Peripheral Intravenous Catheter ◽

Intravascular Devices

Intravascular catheters are indispensable tools in acute care, but with the benefits come the risk of local or systemic Healthcare Acquired Infections (HAIs). In fact, more than 250,000–500,000 intravascular-related bloodstream infections occur in the United States each year with resulting mortality rates of 12%–25%. (Maki, Kluger & Crnich, 2006; CDC, 2002). While bloodstream infections related to the use of peripheral lines may not occur as often as they do with central lines, they do occur. Although most studies focus on central catheter-related bloodstream infections due to their greater documented prevalence and severity, some studies have evaluated the prevalence of peripheral intravenous catheter-associated bloodstream infections. In 2006 Maki reviewed 200 studies that prospectively examined the risk of Bloodstream Infections (BSIs) associated with intravascular devices over a forty year period. The infection rate with peripheral intravenous catheters was 0.5 per 1000 catheter days. Though the frequency of peripheral intravenous catheter-associated infections is lower than with other intravascular devices, absolute numbers of patients affected can be significant with more than 330 million peripheral catheters sold each year in the United States (Millennium Research Group, 2006). Some doctors are stressing the need to use a peripheral line versus early placement of a central line with the rationale to reduce infection rates. Multiple national and international guidelines advocate a number of simple, yet highly effective procedures to reduce risk of central venous catheter infections. Some of these same guidelines should be applied as standards for peripheral catheters. By standardizing protocols across all types of catheter insertions, safety is ensured in reducing infections and ultimately improving patient care.

Download Full-text

ANALYSIS OF NURSING CARE TO USERS OF PERIPHERAL VENOUS ACCESS

Revista Prevenção de Infecção e Saúde ◽

10.26694/repis.v4i0.7329 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 4 ◽

Author(s):

Alana Oliveira Porto ◽

Carla Bianca De Matos Leal ◽

Dieslley Amorim De Souza ◽

Jéssica Lane Pereira Santos

Keyword(s):

Nursing Care ◽

Venous Catheter ◽

Venous Access ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Surgical Patients ◽

Sectional Study ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Professional Identification ◽

Peripheral Venous Catheter ◽

Peripheral Venous Access

Objective: To analyze the nursing care provided to users of peripheral venous catheter. Method: Descriptive, cross-sectional study, performed at a mid-sized hospital situated in the high productive backcountry of Bahia, whose participants were surgical patients using peripheral venous catheters for more than 72 hours. Results: 103 patients were included; 15.5% of the bandages were dirty and/or wet, 40.8% had no date of insertion, 58.3% had no professional identification, 34.9% showed signs of infection, 50.4% did not have records on the chart and 33% presented bacterial growth. Conclusion: Nursing care to users of peripheral venous catheters has not been adequate, resulting in preventable complications when considering scientific recommendations for care with peripheral venous access.

Download Full-text