infection control & hospital epidemiology october 2017, vol. 38, no. 10 research briefs
Peripheral Venous Catheter–Related Adverse Events in a Tropical Country
Peripheral venous catheterization (PVC) is one of the most common procedures performed among hospitalized patients. However, 1%–10%of patients who undergo PVC develop local or systemic complications including phlebitis, infiltration, occlusion, tissue extravasation, and rarely, infection.1–6 The frequency of these complications may vary depending on the type of catheter, insertion site preparation, type of infusate, insertion technique, duration of catheterization, dressing type, and insertion site.1–6 Most studies evaluating PVC-related adverse events (PVCAEs) have been performed in United States and Europe.4,5,7–9 Generalization of these findings to tropical countries may be inappropriate given the high temperature and humidity, which may impact the duration of catheterization and the need for dressing changes. Data regarding PVCAEs in tropical countries are scarce. A prospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate the incidence, type, and associated factors of adverse events associated with PVCs. From January 1, 2017, to March 31, 2017, 5 research nurses
prospectively followed all hospitalized patients at Thammasat University Hospital, a 650-bed, tertiary hospital in Thailand. They also inspected and monitored all inserted PVCs daily for complications. From all hospitalized patients >15 years old with a PVC, consent for study participation was obtained. Each patient with a PVC in place for >24 hours was prospectively followed until PVC removal or complications occurred. Data collected included patient demographics, hospital location of PVC insertion(s), skin condition, Charlson comorbidity score, anatomical site of PVC, inserter, total duration of PVC and PVCAEs. Complications related to PVCs were categorized as mechanical or clinical PVCAEs. Each PVCAE was first recorded as a suspected event based on daily collection of the presence or absence of signs and/or symptoms during catheterization and up to 48 hours after catheter removal. A mechanical PVCAE was defined as any catheter dislodgement that was unplanned, an occlusion of the PVC, or a rupture of the closed infusion system when infusion lines were disconnected from the infusion bag or the absence of a well-sealed injection site. Clinical PVCAEs included localized edema at the site of insertion, phlebitis, hematoma at the insertion site, leakage of fluid/blood and suspected sepsis. Signs and symptoms recorded included redness and/or warmth, tenderness and/or pain, edema and/or swelling, induration, palpable venous cord, and presence of pus, hematoma, and/or fever (when concomitant with another symptom or sign). The grading for phlebitis was modeled from Maddox et al.10
Analyses were performed using SPSS software version 15
(IBM, Armonk,NY), and categorical data were compared using the 2-tailed χ2 or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate. The Mann- Whitney U test was used to compare continuous variables. Logistic regression was performed to assess predictors for out- comes (any PVCAEs). Adjustment was made for key variables including severity of illness, patient characteristics, settings of insertion, and anatomical of catheter insertions. Adjusted odd ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were com- puted; a significant statistical difference was defined as P<.05. In total, 646 PVCs were placed in 500 hospitalized patients
during the study period. The median age was 64 years (range, 49–76 years). The frequency and percentage of Charlson scores were as follows: 0–1 (254 of 500, 51.8%), 2–3 (180 of 500, 36.0%), and >3 (66 of 500, 13.2%). Overall, the median number of PVCs per patient was 1 (range, 1–7). Most PVCs were placed in medical units (58 of 646; 39.9%) or surgical units (155 of 646, 24%), and PVCs were most com- monly inserted into the hand (271 of 646, 42%) or forearm (187 of 646, 29%). The median dwelling time was 3 days (range, 1–24 days); 20.8%of PVCAE patients (104 of 500) had a PVC >3 days. The overall PVCAE rate was 61.1 PVCAEs per 1,000 PVC days. The most common complications were occlusion (24.4 of 1,000 PVC days), phlebitis (19.1 of 1,000 PVC days), and PVC leakage (16 of 1, 000 PVC days) (Table 1). Mechanical PVCAEs were more common than clinical PVCAEs (P=.01). Most PVCAEs occurred during the first 3 days after PVC insertion. There was no significant difference between time to mechanical PVCAE versus clinical PVCAE nor the rates of complications from different insertion sites. By multivariate analysis, being female (aOR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.08– 3.36; P=.02), unstable PVC (aOR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.24–6.45; P=.04), and presence of cutaneous lesions (aOR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.45–5.67; P=.01) were independent risk factors for any PVCAEs, while a covered transparent dressing (aOR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.55–0.92; P=.02) was protective. Our findings highlight several key issues. First, despite the
lower incidence of infection-related PVCAEs, the burden of PVCAEs in this tropical country was high compared to pre- viously reported studies in nontropical countries.2,5–9 Second, the proportion of patients who had a PVC for>3 days was low, likely due to the high temperature and humidity. Although a recent recommendation suggested no benefit of routine PVC replacement (ie, between 72 and 96 hours),1 our data suggest that high temperature and humidity may have impacted on shorter duration of PVC replacement (Table 1).7 Third, our data emphasize the need for meticulous care of PVC during insertion and maintenance. To minimize the risk of occlusion, the PVC needs to be stabilized; a transparent dressing should be used for PVC maintenance. This study has several limitations. First, given the nature of this pilot study, we did not collect clinical conditions (eg, sepsis),
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144
