BACKGROUND: There is currently no high grade evidence on which to base decisions about the frequency of intravenous cannula re-sites. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of changing peripheral venous cannulas when clinically indicated. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING:A tertiary referral hospital in Brisbane, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and six hospitalised patients from surgical, medical and orthopaedic wards. INTERVENTIONS: Peripheral intravenous cannulas were re-sited only when complications occurred (intervention group) or every 3 days (control group). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was any unplanned cannula removal, the secondary outcome was cost. RESULTS: Forty six patients had unplanned removals in the intervention group compared with 41 in the control group [relative risk 1.12, 95% confidence interval 0.81-1.55 (p=0.286)], a non-significant difference. Total duration of peripheral cannulation was similar in both groups (mean 123.3h in the intervention group and 125.9h in the control group: P=0.82) but significantly more re-sites occurred in the control group (167 in intervention group, 202 in the control group: p=0.022). Cost of cannula replacements in the intervention group was AUD$3,183.62 and in the control group AUD$3,837.56 (p=0.006). CONCLUSION:Re-siting peripheral venous cannulas when clinically indicated compared with changing them routinely every 3 days does not lead to more complications and reduces costs.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: There is currently no high grade evidence on which to base decisions about the frequency of intravenous cannula re-sites. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of changing peripheral venous cannulas when clinically indicated. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: A tertiary referral hospital in Brisbane, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and six hospitalised patients from surgical, medical and orthopaedic wards. INTERVENTIONS: Peripheral intravenous cannulas were re-sited only when complications occurred (intervention group) or every 3 days (control group). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was any unplanned cannula removal, the secondary outcome was cost. RESULTS: Forty six patients had unplanned removals in the intervention group compared with 41 in the control group [relative risk 1.12, 95% confidence interval 0.81-1.55 (p=0.286)], a non-significant difference. Total duration of peripheral cannulation was similar in both groups (mean 123.3h in the intervention group and 125.9h in the control group: P=0.82) but significantly more re-sites occurred in the control group (167 in intervention group, 202 in the control group: p=0.022). Cost of cannula replacements in the intervention group was AUD$3,183.62 and in the control group AUD$3,837.56 (p=0.006). CONCLUSION: Re-siting peripheral venous cannulas when clinically indicated compared with changing them routinely every 3 days does not lead to more complications and reduces costs.
Authors: Niccolò Buetti; Mohamed Abbas; Didier Pittet; Marlieke E A de Kraker; Daniel Teixeira; Marie-Noëlle Chraiti; Valérie Sauvan; Julien Sauser; Stephan Harbarth; Walter Zingg Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2021-11-01 Impact factor: 44.409
Authors: Ed Oakley; Franz E Babl; Jason Acworth; Meredith Borland; David Kreiser; Jocelyn Neutze; Theane Theophilos; Susan Donath; Mike South; Andrew Davidson Journal: BMC Pediatr Date: 2010-06-01 Impact factor: 2.125