You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 12, Issue 1
  • Clinically indicated and routine replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters did not differ for catheter failureCommentary

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Treatment
Clinically indicated and routine replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters did not differ for catheter failure

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebn.12.1.19

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    J Webster

    Ms J Webster, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Herston, Queensland, Australia; joan_webster@health.qld.gov.au

    QUESTION

    In hospital inpatients, is clinically indicated replacement of peripheral intravenous (IV) catheters better than routine replacement for catheter failure due to phlebitis or infiltration?

    METHODS

    Design:

    randomised controlled trial (RCT).

    Allocation:

    concealed.

    Blinding:

    {unblinded}.*

    Follow-up period:

    up to 5 consecutive catheters for each patient.

    Setting:

    general tertiary hospital in Queensland, Australia.

    Patients:

    755 medical and surgical inpatients ⩾18 years of age (mean age 59 y, 64% men) who were expected to have a peripheral venous catheter for ⩾4 days. Exclusion criteria were bacteraemia or current immunosuppressive therapy.

    Intervention:

    379 patients were allocated to catheter replacement only when clinically indicated and 376 to routine catheter replacement every 3 …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Source of funding: Queensland Nursing Council and RBWH Research Foundation.