Comparison of clinically indicated replacement and routine replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Open Access
- 12 August 2022
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Frontiers Media SA in Frontiers in Medicine
- Vol. 9, 964096
Abstract
Background: It is unknown whether clinically indicated replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) increases the risks of PIVC-associated complications and infections compared to routine replacement of PIVCs.Methods: We searched PubMed, the Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, and Clinicaltrials.gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compare the safety outcomes of routine replacement and clinically indicated replacement of PIVCs were included for meta-analysis. The primary outcome was the incidence of phlebitis, and secondary outcomes included the risks of occlusion, local infection, infiltration, catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), and accidental removal of the PIVC.Results: A total of 9 RCTs involving 10 973 patients were included in this meta-analysis, of whom 5,546 and 5,527 were assigned to the study group (clinically indicated replacement of PIVCs) and control group (routine replacement of PIVCs every 72–96 h), respectively. The incidence of phlebitis in the study group was significantly higher than that in the control group [risk ratio (RR), 1.20; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01–1.44, P = 0.04, I2 = 49%]. In addition, the study group was associated with a higher risk of occlusion (RR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.08–1.95, P = 0.01, I2 = 82%) and infiltration (fluid leaks) (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.06–1.53, P = 0.01, I2 = 72%) than the control group. However, no significant differences were observed in the risks of local infection (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 0.38–8.16, P = 0.48, I2 = 0%) and CRBSI (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.08–4.68, P = 0.64, I2 = 0%) between the study and control groups.Conclusion: The clinically indicated replacement of PIVCs may increase the risks of PIVC-associated phlebitis, infiltration, and occlusion compared to the routine replacement of PIVCs, but did not increase the risk of PIVC-associated infections. Based on these findings, routine replacement of PIVCs every 72–96 h maybe a preferred option than clinically indicated replacement of PIVCs.Systematic review registration: [www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42022302021].Keywords
This publication has 23 references indexed in Scilit:
- Short Peripheral Intravenous Catheters and InfectionsJournal of Infusion Nursing, 2012
- The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trialsBMJ, 2011
- Guidelines for the Prevention of Intravascular Catheter-related InfectionsClinical Infectious Diseases, 2011
- Routine resite of peripheral intravenous devices every 3 days did not reduce complications compared with clinically indicated resite: a randomised controlled trialBMC Medicine, 2010
- Routine Replacement versus Clinical Monitoring of Peripheral Intravenous Catheters in a Regional Hospital in the Home Program A Randomized Controlled TrialInfection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 2009
- Routine care of peripheral intravenous catheters versus clinically indicated replacement: randomised controlled trialBMJ, 2008
- Developing a Research base for Intravenous Peripheral cannula re-sites (DRIP trial). A randomised controlled trial of hospital in-patientsInternational Journal of Nursing Studies, 2007
- Randomised clinical trial of elective re-siting of intravenous cannulaeThe Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2004
- Intravenous therapyPostgraduate Medical Journal, 2004
- Prevention of Peripheral Venous Catheter Complications With an Intravenous Therapy TeamArchives of internal medicine (1960), 1998