Ashutosh Gupta1, Rajeev Nair2, Shalendra Singh3, Hitesh Khanna4, Amresh Bal5, Seema Patrikar6. 1. Graded Specialist (Anaesthesia), Military Hospital Ranikhet, Almora, India. 2. Commandant 150 General Hospital, C/o 56 APO, India. 3. Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology & Critical Care, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, India. 4. Graded Specialist (Anaesthesia), HQ IMTRAT, Bhutan. 5. Senior Resident (Anaesthesia), AIIMS Bhubhaneshwar, Orisssa, India. 6. Lecturer in Statistics & Demography, Department of Community Medicine, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, India.
Abstract
Background: Millions of patients admitted globally in health care setups require insertion of peripheral intravascular catheter for intravenous drugs or fluid administration. However, if proper precautions are not followed during insertion, it results in significant morbidity. This study was designed to study the efficacy and safety of recommended Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for peripheral intravascular catheter insertion practice and its comparison with a standard insertion protocol being followed and their outcome. Methods: Patients were randomized and catheter was inserted as recommended by CDC guideline (Group 1, n = 100) or followed standard defined steps during insertion (Group 2, n = 100). Results: Almost double the patients had occurrence of thrombophlebitis in Group 1 (p = 0.02). No difference observed between catheter needle size and infection rates (p = 0.3). Infection rate increased significantly if second attempt is taken for insertion. The time required to insert catheter following CDC recommended protocol is less than as by standard surgical complete asepsis cleaning protocol (86.03 vs 109.40 s) (p = 0.001). Study also observed that insertion at wrist joint leads to higher incidence of thrombophlebitis. During 0-24 h, 6% (12) insertions turned positive followed by a dip during 25-48 h, 2% (5) insertions. 80% (159) insertions did not develop thrombophlebitis at the end of 72 h. Conclusion: It is thus amply demonstrated that meticulous adherence to insertion procedure with asepsis plays an important role in decreasing intravascular catheter associated morbidity. Other parameters like needle gauge, sites of insertion, have little bearing. The time required in following standard aseptic technique is significantly more but keeping in view the benefit to the patient it is highly recommended.
Background: Millions of patients admitted globally in health care setups require insertion of peripheral intravascular catheter for intravenous drugs or fluid administration. However, if proper precautions are not followed during insertion, it results in significant morbidity. This study was designed to study the efficacy and safety of recommended Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for peripheral intravascular catheter insertion practice and its comparison with a standard insertion protocol being followed and their outcome. Methods: Patients were randomized and catheter was inserted as recommended by CDC guideline (Group 1, n = 100) or followed standard defined steps during insertion (Group 2, n = 100). Results: Almost double the patients had occurrence of thrombophlebitis in Group 1 (p = 0.02). No difference observed between catheter needle size and infection rates (p = 0.3). Infection rate increased significantly if second attempt is taken for insertion. The time required to insert catheter following CDC recommended protocol is less than as by standard surgical complete asepsis cleaning protocol (86.03 vs 109.40 s) (p = 0.001). Study also observed that insertion at wrist joint leads to higher incidence of thrombophlebitis. During 0-24 h, 6% (12) insertions turned positive followed by a dip during 25-48 h, 2% (5) insertions. 80% (159) insertions did not develop thrombophlebitis at the end of 72 h. Conclusion: It is thus amply demonstrated that meticulous adherence to insertion procedure with asepsis plays an important role in decreasing intravascular catheter associated morbidity. Other parameters like needle gauge, sites of insertion, have little bearing. The time required in following standard aseptic technique is significantly more but keeping in view the benefit to the patient it is highly recommended.
Authors: Naomi P O'Grady; Mary Alexander; Lillian A Burns; E Patchen Dellinger; Jeffrey Garland; Stephen O Heard; Pamela A Lipsett; Henry Masur; Leonard A Mermel; Michele L Pearson; Issam I Raad; Adrienne G Randolph; Mark E Rupp; Sanjay Saint Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2011-04-01 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Marianne C Wallis; Matthew McGrail; Joan Webster; Nicole Marsh; John Gowardman; E Geoffrey Playford; Claire M Rickard Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2013-12-02 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: David K Warren; Wasim W Quadir; Christopher S Hollenbeak; Alexis M Elward; Michael J Cox; Victoria J Fraser Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Stijn I Blot; Pieter Depuydt; Lieven Annemans; Dominique Benoit; Eric Hoste; Jan J De Waele; Johan Decruyenaere; Dirk Vogelaers; Francis Colardyn; Koenraad H Vandewoude Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2005-10-25 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Wesley H Self; Joyce Mickanin; Carlos G Grijalva; Freda H Grant; Michelle C Henderson; Glenda Corley; D Glen Blaschke Ii; Candace D McNaughton; Tyler W Barrett; Thomas R Talbot; Barbara R Paul Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 3.451