• J A Martínez, M Piazuelo, M Almela, P Blecua, R Gallardo, S Rodríguez, Z Escalante, M Robau, and A Trilla.
• Infectious Diseases Service, Hospital Clinic, IDIBAPS-University of Barcelona, Spain. jamarti@clinic.ub.es
• J. Hosp. Infect. 2009 Oct 1;73(2):135-42.

AbstractThe aim of this study was to assess the role of add-on devices for the prevention of phlebitis and other complications associated with the use of peripheral catheters. Patients admitted to an infectious diseases ward and requiring the insertion of a peripheral catheter for at least 24h were randomly allocated to be managed with or without add-on devices. Incidence of phlebitis and all complications were the primary outcomes. Extravasation, inadvertent withdrawal, obstruction and rupture were considered to be mechanical complications, and analysis was performed using survival methods. Of 683 evaluated catheters, 351 were allocated to the add-on device arm and 332 to the control arm. Despite randomisation, patients in the add-on device group were older (P=0.048), less likely to have human immunodeficiency virus (P=0.02) and more likely to have received antibiotics (P=0.05). After adjustment for these variables, the hazard ratio for phlebitis remained non-significant (hazard ratio: 0.95; 95% confidence interval: 0.7-1.3), but the risk of mechanical complications became lower in the add-on device arm (0.68; 0.5-0.94). This translated into a trend towards a lower risk of any complication (0.83; 0.67-1.01). The beneficial effect on mechanical or all complications was noticeable after six days of catheterisation. Add-on devices do not reduce the incidence of phlebitis but may prevent mechanical complications. However, the impact of add-on devices on the incidence of all complications is at most small and only apparent after the sixth day of catheter use.

29 keywords...

hide…