In this first evidence blog in our new series Evidence for Everyday Nursing, I’ve looked at a Cochrane review which found no evidence to support routinely replacing peripheral venous catheters. This was then discussed in a #WeNurses tweetchat, summarised in this blog.
Routine can be a dangerous thing. It might be a very good thing to do something routinely, of course, but practices that are so entrenched that no-one questions them might not be the best thing at all.
What do you do when it comes to managing peripheral venous catheters (PVCs)? Change them routinely or only when there are clinical signs that this is necessary, such as blockage, pain, redness, infiltration, swelling, leaking or phlebitis?
The UK’s epic3 National Evidence Based Guidelines recommend that short peripheral catheters should be replaced when clinically indicated, unless the patient is receiving parenteral nutrition peripherally. These guidelines cite the previous version of a Cochrane review, which has recently been updated. There were no new studies to add in 2015.
The Cochrane review brings together the best available evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing routine replacement of PVCs with re-siting them only when clinically indicated. The reviewers were interested in four main outcomes: catheter-related bloodstream infection; phlebitis; all-cause bloodstream infection; and cost. They were able to include seven RCTs with 4895 patients in both acute and community settings. Routine replacement was done at between 72 and 96 hours in five trials and every 48 hours in two.
Here’s what they found:
- No difference in catheter-related bloodstream infection (which was between 0.0% and 0.3%)
- No difference in phlebitis rates (and this was the same whether infusions were continuous or intermittent)
- No difference between groups when analysed by the number of device days
- No difference in all-cause bloodstream infection (assessed in one trial)
- Lower cannulation costs in the clinically-indicated replacement group
How reliable is the evidence?
For the outcome catheter-related bloodstream infection the evidence was assessed as moderate quality; there is some uncertainty around it. For the other outcomes, the evidence is high quality and we can be confident about these results; further research is very unlikely to change this.
How much money could this save the NHS?
It has been calculated that if the clinically-indicated strategy was fully implemented in all NHS hospitals in England, the cost savings would be around £40 million over five years (Tuffaha et al, 2014).
What about catheter blockage?
Catheter failure due to blockage was more frequent in the clinically-indicated group, as would be expected – all of them fail eventually, but many last the length of treatment. The reviewers point out that this outcome isn’t clinically meaningful; it just indicates that they were in place for longer in the clinically-indicated group. As the ‘treatment’ for a blocked catheter is to replace it, taking it out earlier wouldn’t reduce the need for replacement!
What was missing?
The review team planned to compare ‘the number of catheter re-sites per patient’, ‘pain’ and ‘satisfaction’, but these were not reported in the included studies. Five of the studies were conducted in Australia, one in the UK and one in India. The reviewers, though noting that the patients were ‘representative of those usually managed in healthcare,’ said it would be useful to see similar studies from other healthcare systems.
What does this mean for your practice?
The review found no evidence to support routinely changing PVCs. I guest-hosted a #WeNurses tweetchat on 17 November to discuss the evidence and practice. Find out more on the €WeNurses chat archive here and in my blog about the chat here.
If you want to know more about our new series Evidence for Everyday Nursing and its sister series Evidence for Everyday Midwives, do read this blog. Join in the conversation by commenting here or talking on Twitter using #EENursing @ukcochranecentr @SarahChapman30
Replacing peripheral venous catheters: have you ditched the routine? by Sarah Chapman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD007798.pub4/abstract.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD007798.pub4/abstract.
Images may not be reproduced as they have been purchased from stock.com for Evidently Cochrane
Webster J, Osborne S, Rickard CM, New K. Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 8. Art. No.: CD007798. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007798.pub4.
Plain language summary of this review http://www.cochrane.org/CD007798/PVD_replacing-peripheral-venous-catheter-when-clinically-indicated-versus-routine-replacement
Loveday HP, Wilson JA, Pratt RJ, Golsorkhi M, Tingle A, Browne J, Prieto J, Wilcox M. epic3: National Evidence-Based Guidelines for Preventing Healthcare-Associated Infections in NHS Hospitals in England. London: Richard Wells Research Centre, University of West London; 2013. Journal of Hospital Infection 2014; 86S1: S1-70. Available from: http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0195-6701/PIIS0195670113600122.pdf
Tuffaha HW, Rickard CM, Inwood S, Gordon L, Scuffham P. The epic3 recommendation that clinically indicated replacement of peripheral venous catheters is safe and cost-saving: how much would the NHS save? J Hosp Infect 2014;87(3):183-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2014.04.004. Available from: http://www.journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/S0195-6701(14)00124-8/abstract
Chapman S. “Getting evidence into nursing practice: replacing the routine”. Evidently Cochrane. 21 November 2015. Web. 21 November 2015. http://www.evidentlycochrane.net/getting-evidence-into-nursing-practice-replacing-the-routine/
There is now an NIHR Signal available on this review:
NIHR Dissemination Centre, National Institute for Health Research. “NIHR Signal: Routine replacement of intravenous cannulae is unnecessary and costly”. NIHR Signal, 28 January 2016. Web. 4 February 2016.https://discover.dc.nihr.ac.uk/portal/article/4000096/routine-replacement-of-intravenous-cannulae-is-unnecessary-and-costly
Page last updated 04 February 2016