Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement
of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Webster J, Osborne S, Rickard CM, New K
This is a reprint of a Cochrane review, prepared and maintained by The Cochrane Collaboration and published in The Cochrane Library
2013, Issue 4
http://www.thecochranelibrary.com
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
HEADER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR THE MAIN COMPARISON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 1.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 2.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 3.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 4.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 5.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 6.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 7.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 8.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 9.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DATA AND ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change, Outcome 1 Catheter-related blood stream
infection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change, Outcome 2 Phlebitis. . . . . . . . .
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change, Outcome 3 Phlebitis per device days. . . .
Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change, Outcome 4 All-cause blood stream infection.
Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change, Outcome 5 Infiltration. . . . . . . . .
Analysis 1.6. Comparison 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change, Outcome 6 Local infection. . . . . . .
Analysis 1.7. Comparison 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change, Outcome 7 Blockage. . . . . . . . .
Analysis 1.8. Comparison 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change, Outcome 8 Mortality. . . . . . . . .
Analysis 1.9. Comparison 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change, Outcome 9 Cost. . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
WHAT’S NEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CONTRIBUTIONS OF AUTHORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SOURCES OF SUPPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PROTOCOL AND REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
INDEX TERMS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
1
1
2
3
5
6
6
8
10
11
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
16
17
18
19
19
21
32
32
33
34
34
35
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
39
39
40
40
i
[Intervention Review]
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement
of peripheral venous catheters
Joan Webster1,2,3 , Sonya Osborne4 , Claire M Rickard2,5 , Karen New6,7
1 Centre
for Clinical Nursing, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. 2 NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence in
Nursing, Centre for Health Practice Innovation, Griffith Health Institute, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. 3 School of Nursing
and Midwifery, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 4 School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove
(Brisbane), Australia. 5 Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. 6 Grantley Stable Neonatal Unit, Royal Brisbane and
Women’s Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. 7 School of Nursing and Midwifery, Centre for Health Practice Innovation, Griffith Health
Institute, Griffith University, Nathan, Australia
Contact address: Joan Webster, joan_webster@health.qld.gov.au.
Editorial group: Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group.
Publication status and date: New search for studies and content updated (no change to conclusions), published in Issue 4, 2013.
Review content assessed as up-to-date: 11 December 2012.
Citation: Webster J, Osborne S, Rickard CM, New K. Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous
catheters. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD007798. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007798.pub3.
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
ABSTRACT
Background
US Centers for Disease Control guidelines recommend replacement of peripheral intravenous (IV) catheters no more frequently than
every 72 to 96 hours. Routine replacement is thought to reduce the risk of phlebitis and bloodstream infection. Catheter insertion is
an unpleasant experience for patients and replacement may be unnecessary if the catheter remains functional and there are no signs of
inflammation. Costs associated with routine replacement may be considerable. This is an update of a review first published in 2010.
Objectives
To assess the effects of removing peripheral IV catheters when clinically indicated compared with removing and re-siting the catheter
routinely.
Search methods
For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases (PVD) Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the PVD Specialised
Register (December 2012) and CENTRAL (2012, Issue 11). We also searched MEDLINE (last searched October 2012) and clinical
trials registries.
Selection criteria
Randomised controlled trials that compared routine removal of peripheral IV catheters with removal only when clinically indicated in
hospitalised or community dwelling patients receiving continuous or intermittent infusions.
Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
1
Main results
Seven trials with a total of 4895 patients were included in the review. Catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) was assessed in
five trials (4806 patients). There was no significant between group difference in the CRBSI rate (clinically-indicated 1/2365; routine
change 2/2441). The risk ratio (RR) was 0.61 but the confidence interval (CI) was wide, creating uncertainty around the estimate (95%
CI 0.08 to 4.68; P = 0.64). No difference in phlebitis rates was found whether catheters were changed according to clinical indications
or routinely (clinically-indicated 186/2365; 3-day change 166/2441; RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.39). This result was unaffected by
whether infusion through the catheter was continuous or intermittent. We also analysed the data by number of device days and again
no differences between groups were observed (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.27; P = 0.75). One trial assessed all-cause bloodstream
infection. There was no difference in this outcome between the two groups (clinically-indicated 4/1593 (0.02%); routine change 9/
1690 (0.05%); P = 0.21). Cannulation costs were lower by approximately AUD 7.00 in the clinically-indicated group (mean difference
(MD) -6.96, 95% CI -9.05 to -4.86; P ≤ 0.00001).
Authors’ conclusions
The review found no evidence to support changing catheters every 72 to 96 hours. Consequently, healthcare organisations may consider
changing to a policy whereby catheters are changed only if clinically indicated. This would provide significant cost savings and would
spare patients the unnecessary pain of routine re-sites in the absence of clinical indications. To minimise peripheral catheter-related
complications, the insertion site should be inspected at each shift change and the catheter removed if signs of inflammation, infiltration,
or blockage are present.
PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY
Replacing a peripheral venous catheter when clinically indicated versus routine replacement
Most hospital patients receive fluids or medications via an intravenous catheter at some time during their hospital stay. An intravenous
catheter (also called an IV drip or intravenous cannula) is a short, hollow tube placed in the vein to allow administration of medications,
fluids or nutrients directly into the bloodstream. These catheters are often replaced every three to four days to try to prevent irritation
of the vein or infection of the blood. However, the procedure may cause discomfort to patients and is quite costly. This review included
all of the randomised controlled trials which have compared routine catheter changes with changing the catheter only if there were
signs of inflammation or infection. We found no evidence of benefit to support current practice of changing catheters routinely every
three to four days.
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
2
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
S U M M A R Y O F F I N D I N G S F O R T H E M A I N C O M P A R I S O N [Explanation]
Clinically-indicated versus routine changes for peripheral venous catheter-related complications
Patient or population: patients with peripheral venous catheter-related complications
Settings: Hospitals and community settings
Intervention: clinically-indicated versus routine changes
Outcomes
Catheter-related bloodstream infection
Positive blood culture
from a peripheral vein;
clinical signs of infection; no other apparent source for the
bloodstream infection except the intravenous
catheter; and colonised
intravenous catheter tip
culture with the same organism as identified in the
blood
Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)
Assumed risk
Corresponding risk
Control
Clinically indicated versus routine changes
Study population
1 per 1000
Relative effect
(95% CI)
No of Participants
(studies)
Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)
RR 0.61
(0.08 to 4.68)
4806
(5 studies)
⊕⊕⊕⊕
high1,2,3
RR 1.14
(0.93 to 1.39)
4806
(5 studies)
⊕⊕⊕⊕
high1,3
1 per 1000
(0 to 5)
Moderate
0 per 1000
Phlebitis
Study population
Any definition used by the
68 per 1000
author
Moderate
0 per 1000
(0 to 0)
78 per 1000
(63 to 95)
Comments
3
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
68 per 1000
All-cause bloodstream Study population
infection
5 per 1000
78 per 1000
(63 to 95)
RR 0.47
(0.15 to 1.53)
3283
(1 study)
⊕⊕⊕⊕
high1,3
4244
(3 studies)
⊕⊕⊕⊕
high
3 per 1000
(1 to 8)
Moderate
5 per 1000
Cost
Estmated. Based on materials and staff costs4,5
2 per 1000
(1 to 8)
The mean cost in the intervention groups was
AUD $6.96 lower
(9.05 to 4.86 lower)
*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the
assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio;
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.
1
Although patients and those recording outcomes were aware of group allocation, it seems unlikely that this knowledge would have
affected results. None of those recording outcomes were investigators and the diagnosis was based on verifiable data in patients
medical records.
2 In three of the five trials, no CRBSI occurred in either arm of the study. In the other two trials there was considerable overlap in the
confidence intervals, consequently there was no statistical heterogeneity.
3 Participants, interventions and outcomes were similar across studies.
4 The overall cost for cannula replacement varies by cost of materials, time, solutions, additives to the solution.
5 Mean cost is reported in Australian dollars.
4
BACKGROUND
Among hospitalised patients, intravenous therapy is the most common invasive procedure. Intravenous therapy is associated with a
phlebitis rate of between 2.3% (White 2001) and 60% (Gupta
2007) and an intravenous catheter-related bacteraemia (CRBSI)
rate of approximately 0.1% (Maki 2006). Current guidelines recommend that “there is no need to replace peripheral catheters
more frequently than every 72 to 96 hours to reduce risk of infection and phlebitis in adults” (O’Grady 2011), and most hospitals
follow this recommendation. The 2011 recommendation carries a
category rating of 1B (strongly recommended for implementation
and supported by some experimental, clinical or epidemiological
studies). In support of the rating, the guideline cites two observational studies (Lai 1998; Tager 1983) and one RCT. The first observational study followed 3094 patients through their period of
IV peripheral catheterisation and found that the phlebitis rate was
3.2% among those whose catheters remaining in situ for > seven
days, compared with a rate of 4.1% and 3.9% for those whose
dwell times were three and four days respectively (Tager 1983).
The second observational study compared intravenous catheters
left in place for 72 hours or 96 hours and found equivalent phlebitis
rates (Lai 1998). The one RCT that was cited was designed to
compare two types of catheter material, not dwell times (Maki
1991). The guideline also exempts children or patients with poor
veins from the recommendation. In recent years, there have been
improvements in catheter design and composition and more recent studies, including an earlier version of this review (Webster
2010), indicate that the recommendation may need to be revised.
Description of the condition
Peripheral vein infusion thrombophlebitis (PVT) is characterised
by pain, erythema (redness of the skin), swelling, and palpable
thrombosis of the cannulated vein (Monreal 1999). Diagnosis remains controversial and a number of grading systems have been
proposed, although with limited validation testing performed.
These include the Maddox scale (Maddox 1977) and the Baxter
scale (Panadero 2002), which rank infusion thrombophlebitis according to the severity of clinical signs and symptoms. The scales
are limited because not all symptoms may be present, or they may
not always be present in the clusters described in the scales. Consequently, many investigators define PVT based on two or more
of pain, tenderness, warmth, erythema, swelling, and a palpable
cord (Maki 1991; Monreal 1999), even though it may be difficult to distinguish between pain and tenderness. More recently,
a new definition for phlebitis has been proposed, one based on
a more objective assessment of the insertion site (Rickard 2012).
Although the precise pathogenesis of thrombus formation remains
unclear, it is thought to be related to inflammation of the vein
wall. Studies have been unable to demonstrate a high correlation
between phlebitis and catheter infection and Maki has suggested
that phlebitis may primarily be a physical response (Maki 1991).
This was supported by Catney and colleagues when investigating the aetiology of phlebitis; they found that drug irritation, size
of catheter, and the person inserting the catheter were all predictors (Catney 2001). Utrasonographic imaging has demonstrated
thrombus formation in two thirds of catheterised veins studied
and it has been suggested that catheter design may be implicated
(Everitt 1997). Thus, possible causes of phlebitis are mechanical
irritation from the catheter and the properties of the infusate or
intravenously administered medications.
Description of the intervention
The intervention under consideration is replacing an intravenous
peripheral catheter only if there are clinical indications to do so.
Clinical indications include blockage, pain, redness, infiltration,
swelling, leakage, and phlebitis.
How the intervention might work
Each time a catheter is inserted, the patient’s skin integrity is
breached and a potential portal for pathogens is provided. For example, Uslusoy found a significant relationship between the number of times infusions were inserted and phlebitis (Uslusoy 2008).
Consequently, it may be prudent to limit the frequency of peripheral catheter changes as long as there is no clinical reason to do so.
There is some support for this approach from observational studies
that have compared outcomes between catheters remaining in situ
for varying periods. In an adequately powered observational study,
which included patients from medical wards and intensive care
units, the investigators were unable to demonstrate any increased
risk of phlebitis beyond the second day (Bregenzer 1998). Similarly, in a retrospective study of 784 intravenous catheter starts
the rate of phlebitis on days one and two was 11.5%, dropping
to 3.9% by day four (Homer 1998). The authors concluded that
“there appeared to be less risk in continuing therapy beyond the
third day than re-starting the therapy” (pp 304). Catney 2001
also failed to demonstrate any increase in phlebitis rates with the
passage of time, with failure rates being less at 144 hours (1.9%)
than at 72 hours (2.5%) (Catney 2001). Similarly, in a prospective investigation of 305 peripheral catheters there were 10 cases
of infusion phlebitis amongst patients who had their catheter in
situ for less than 72 hours whereas none were reported in patients
where the dwell time was longer (White 2001). In the same study,
there were three cases of post-infusion phlebitis; these all occurred
amongst patients whose peripheral vein infusion catheter had been
in place for less than 72 hours. Even among a high risk population of oncology and infectious diseases patients, phlebitis rates
were no different when length of cannulation was dichotomised
to three days or less and more than three days (Cornely 2002).
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
5
Why it is important to do this review
Types of interventions
These observational studies create uncertainty around the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines relating to peripheral
intravenous catheter management. This uncertainty has led some
hospitals to adopt the practice of re-siting only where there is evidence of inflammation or infiltration (personal communication).
Included in the new CDC recommendations is a statement related
to clinically-indicated (Cl I) replacement in adults, advising that
this was an “unresolved issue” and referencing the previous version
of this review (Webster 2010), which showed ’no difference’ between the two approaches to re-siting. Making the guidelines even
more difficult to rationalise is the recommendation for peripheral
catheter replacement in children, which states “replace peripheral
catheters in children only when clinically indicated” (O’Grady
2011). References supporting the 2011 recommendation were unrelated to dwell times (Band 1980; Maki 1973) and may indicate
a mistake in the CDC’s reference list (p61) (O’Grady 2011). Insertion of a peripheral intravenous catheter can be a painful and
traumatic process and, if unnecessary, adds not only to a patient’s
discomfort but also has significant cost implications for the institution. There is a clear need to provide direction for clinicians
through systematically reviewing existing studies.
Any duration of time before routine replacement versus clinicallyindicated replacement will be included. Catheters made from any
type of material (for example metal, plastic); non-coated or coated
with any type of product (for example antibiotic, anticoagulant); or
covered by any type of dressing (for example gauze, clear occlusive)
were eligible.
Types of outcome measures
Primary outcomes
• Catheter-related blood stream infection (CRBSI) (defined
as a positive blood culture from a peripheral vein; clinical signs of
infection; no other apparent source for the bloodstream infection
except the intravenous catheter; and colonised intravenous
catheter tip culture with the same organism as identified in the
blood)
• Thrombophlebitis (using any definition identified by the
trial author)
• Cost (in terms of materials and labour associated with IV
catheter-related insertion)
Secondary outcomes
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of removing peripheral intravenous (IV)
catheters when clinically indicated compared with removing and
re-siting the catheters routinely.
METHODS
Criteria for considering studies for this review
• All-cause bloodstream infection (defined as a any positive
blood culture drawn from a peripheral vein while an intravenous
catheter is in situ or for 48 hours after removal)
• Infiltration (defined as permeation of IV fluid into the
interstitial compartment, causing swelling of the tissue around
the site of the catheter)
• Catheter occlusion (identified by the inability to infuse
fluids)
• Number of catheter re-sites per patient
• Local infection
• Mortality
• Pain
• Satisfaction
Types of studies
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing routine removal of peripheral IV catheters with removal only when clinically
indicated were considered. Cross-over trials were not eligible for
inclusion.
Types of participants
Any patient requiring a peripheral IV catheter to be in situ for at
least three days for the administration of intermittent or continuous therapy (this may include patients in hospitals, nursing homes,
or in community settings). Participants receiving parenteral fluids
were excluded.
Search methods for identification of studies
There was no restriction on language. If foreign language studies
had been found, we intended to seek initial translation of abstracts
for the application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Where
necessary, the methods, results, and discussion sections would have
been translated for inclusion in the review.
Electronic searches
For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases (PVD)
Group Trials Search Co-ordinator (TSC) searched the PVD Specialised Register (last searched December 2012) and the Cochrane
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
6
Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2012, Issue
11), part of The Cochrane Library at www.thecochranelibrary.com.
See Appendix 1 for details of the search strategy used to search
CENTRAL. The PVD Specialised Register is maintained by the
TSC and is constructed from weekly electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, and through handsearching
relevant journals. The full list of the databases, journals, and conference proceedings which have been searched, as well as the search
strategies used, are described in the Specialised Register section of
the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group module in The
Cochrane Library (www.thecochranelibrary.com).
Searching other resources
We contacted researchers and manufacturers in order to obtain
any unpublished data. Reference lists of potentially useful articles
were also searched.
We also searched the following clinical trials registries using the
terms peripheral intravenous catheter and phlebitis.
• ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/).
• World Health Organization International Clinical Trials
Registry Platform (ICTRP) (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/).
Data collection and analysis
Selection of studies
Titles and abstracts identified through the search process were independently reviewed by JW, SO, and CR. Full reports of all potentially relevant trials were retrieved for further assessment of eligibility based on the inclusion criteria. As the review authors were
also the investigators on some of the included trials, assessment
was allocated to a review author who was not an investigator. Differences of opinion were settled by consensus or referral to a third
review author. There was no blinding of authorship.
Data extraction and management
Following PVD Group recommendations, two review authors independently extracted data to a pre-tested data extraction form.
Disagreements were resolved by discussion and, where necessary,
by a third review author. We contacted authors of published and
unpublished trials for additional information.
We extracted the following main sets of data from each included
study:
• lead author, date;
• study participant inclusion criteria;
• country where the research was conducted;
• participants’ gender and age;
• study design, randomisation processes, allocation
concealment;
• intervention descriptions;
• intervention setting (hospital, home, residential aged care
facilities);
• numbers of participants in each trial arm, withdrawals and
dropouts;
• outcome measures, time(s) at which outcomes were assessed
The first review author entered the data into RevMan, with another
review author checking the data entry accuracy.
Assessment of risk of bias in included studies
Two review authors independently assessed the included studies
using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias
(Higgins 2011a). This tool addresses six specific domains, namely
sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other issues
(for example extreme baseline imbalance). Disagreements between
review authors were resolved by consensus or referral to a third
review author. We contacted the investigators of included trials to
resolve any ambiguities.
Measures of treatment effect
For individual trials, effect measures for categorical outcomes included risk ratio (RR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI). For
statistically significant effects, the number needed to treat (NNT)
or number needed to harm (NNH) was calculated. For continuous
outcomes the effect measure we used was mean difference (MD)
or, if the scale of measurement differed across trials, standardised
mean difference (SMD), each with its 95% CI. For any metaanalyses (see below), for categorical outcomes the typical estimates
of RR with their 95% CI were calculated; and for continuous
outcomes the mean difference (MD) or a summary estimate for
SMD, each with its 95% CI, were calculated. Data were analysed
using the Cochrane Collaboration’s Review Manager (RevMan) 5
software.
Summary of findings tables
To assess the overall body of evidence, we developed a ’Summary
of findings’ table for the four primary outcomes (catheter-related
bloodstream infection; phlebitis; all-cause bloodstream infection;
and cost) using GRADEprofiler. The quality of the body of evidence was assessed against five principle domains: 1) limitations in
design and implementation; 2) indirectness of evidence or generalisability of findings; 3) inconsistency of results, for example unexplained heterogeneity and inconsistent findings; 4) imprecision
of results where confidence intervals were wide; and 5) other potential biases, for example publication bias or high manufacturer
involvement (Schnemann 2011).
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
7
Unit of analysis issues
It is inadequate merely to compare longer and shorter dwell time
intravenous devices (IVDs) on crude incidence of complications;
this does not take into account the cumulative daily risk inherent
with IVD use. There is clearly a ‘per day risk’ that is present,
and grows with each day of IVD treatment, regardless of how
many IVDs are used over the period of therapy. This cannot be
extrapolated to mean that restricting (removing) individual IVDs
will reduce overall risk. That is, an IVD in situ for seven days
has seven days of exposure to risk compared with an IVD in use
for only three days, but if the patient requires therapy for seven
days in total then using multiple catheters over the period may
not reduce risk but merely divide the same risk between multiple
catheters. Appropriate time comparisons need to be made using
statistics such as Kaplan-Meier analysis, logistic regression, or Cox
proportional models. It is vital that the patient is used as the unit
of measurement (denominator for comparison), not the IVD. If a
patient requires therapy for example for five days, the patient may
have one catheter used for the entire time or alternately multiple
IVDs used over the five days. If the multiple catheters are viewed
independently they may appear to have lower risk per catheter but
the total risk for the patient over the five days may be the same.
We dealt with this by only including studies where data were
available per patient rather than per catheter. Where data were not
originally analysed in this format we contacted the investigators
(for example Van Donk 2009) to get these data. For comparison,
we have also included an analysis of phlebitis per catheter days
where this information was available.
Cross-over trials were not eligible. There were no cluster randomised trials.
Dealing with missing data
If any outcome data remained missing despite our attempts to
obtain complete outcome data from authors, we assessed the risk
of bias of the missing data and decided if the missing data were
at ’low’ or ’high’ risk of bias according to our risk of bias criteria
(Higgins 2011a). if data were considered to be missing at random,
we analysed the available information. If standard deviations were
missing, we planned to impute them from other studies or, where
possible, compute them from standard errors using the formula
√
SD = SE X N where these were available (Higgins 2008).
studies which were considered to be sufficiently similar. Where
heterogeneity was absent or low (I2 = 0% to 25%) we used a fixedeffect model; if there was evidence of heterogeneity (I2 > 25%)
we used a random-effects model. If heterogeneity was high (I2 >
65%) we did not pool the data (Higgins 2003).
Assessment of reporting biases
Reporting bias was assessed using guidelines in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011a). Where
sufficient study data were available for individual outcomes, funnel plots were developed and inspected for evidence of publication
bias.
Data synthesis
Where appropriate, results of comparable trials were pooled using
a fixed-effect model and the pooled estimate together with its 95%
CI were reported. We conducted a narrative review of eligible
studies where statistical synthesis of data from more than one study
was not possible or considered not appropriate.
Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity
We planned to analyse potential sources of heterogeneity using the
following subgroup analyses.
1. Type of randomisation (truly randomised versus not
reported).
2. Concealment of allocation (adequate versus not reported).
3. Blinding (patients and clinicians blinded versus open-label).
4. Statement of withdrawals and losses to follow up in each
group (stated versus not stated).
5. Intermittent versus continuous infusion.
Sensitivity analysis
We planned to perform sensitivity analyses to explore the effect of
the following criteria.
1. Concealment of allocation.
2. Size of studies (< 100 patients versus at least 100 patients).
3. Duration of follow up.
4. Unpublished studies.
Assessment of heterogeneity
We explored clinical heterogeneity by examining potentially influential factors, for example intervention dwell time, care setting, or
patient characteristics. We assessed statistical heterogeneity using
the I2 statistic (Higgins 2008). This examines the percentage of
total variation across studies due to heterogeneity rather than to
chance. Values of I2 between 50% and 90% may represent substantial heterogeneity and values over 75% indicate a high level
of heterogeneity. We carried out statistical pooling on groups of
RESULTS
Description of studies
See: Characteristics of included studies; Characteristics of excluded
studies.
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
8
Results of the search
For this update there were 10 additional citations which were considered potentially relevant following screening of the search results. Two of these were publications of two unpublished trials
which were included in the original review (Rickard 2010; Rickard
2012). There was one additional included study (Nishanth 2009)
and two additional excluded studies (Nakae 2010; Rijnders 2004).
The remaining five citations did not relate to studies using peripheral catheters. Authors of all included trials were asked for
additional information. Responses were received in all cases. No
additional trials were found in our search of trials registries.
Included studies
Because three of the authors of this review were also investigators
in trials under consideration, we allocated the assessment of those
trials to review authors who were not investigators for those particular studies.
Seven RCTs (Barker 2004; Nishanth 2009; Rickard 2010; Rickard
2012; Van Donk 2009; Webster 2007; Webster 2008) met the
inclusion criteria (see table: Characteristics of included studies for
details).
The seven trials involved a total of 4895 participants, with individual trial sizes ranging between 42 and 3283. One trial was
carried out in England (Barker 2004), one in India (Nishanth
2009), the remaining five trials were Australian (Rickard 2010;
Rickard 2012; Van Donk 2009; Webster 2007; Webster 2008).
Five of the trials were conducted in single-centre, acute inpatient
settings (Barker 2004; Nishanth 2009; Rickard 2010; Webster
2007; Webster 2008), one was a multi-centre trial in three Australian hospitals (Rickard 2012), and one was undertaken in a
community setting (Van Donk 2009).
In six trials (Barker 2004; Nishanth 2009; Rickard 2010; Rickard
2012; Webster 2007; Webster 2008) patients were included if
they were receiving either continuous infusions or intermittent
infusions for medication therapy, whereas the catheters in the
Van Donk 2009 trial were used for intermittent medication therapy only. In five trials (Rickard 2010; Rickard 2012; Van Donk
2009; Webster 2007; Webster 2008) the comparison was be-
tween routine care (planned three-day changes) and clinically-indicated changes. Barker 2004 and Nishanth 2009 compared 48hour changes with removal for clinical indications such as pain,
catheter dislodgement, or phlebitis.
Five of the trials (Barker 2004; Rickard 2010; Rickard 2012;
Webster 2007; Webster 2008) used a standard definition of two
or more of the following: pain, warmth, erythema, swelling, or
a palpable cord. Barker 2004 and Nishanth 2009 further classified phlebitis as either mild, moderate, or severe depending on the
area of erythema (Barker 2004) or on the number of symptoms
(Nishanth 2009). Van Donk 2009 included the same symptoms
as other trials but scored them as either one or two depending on
the severity. A score of two or more was classified as phlebitis, consequently a patient may have had only one symptom, for example
pain, to receive a positive diagnosis.
Power calculations were reported by Nishanth 2009; Rickard
2010; Rickard 2012; Webster 2007; Webster 2008; and Van Donk
2009 but not by Barker 2004. All of the studies had institutional
ethical approval.
Excluded studies
The table Characteristics of excluded studies contains the reasons for excluding nine trials. In summary, two were very small
studies involving the administration of peripheral parenteral nutrition. Neither trial compared straightforward routine replacement with clinically-indicated removal (Kerin 1991; May 1996).
One trial (Panadero 2002) compared one group that used the
same catheter both intraoperatively and postoperatively with a
group using two catheters, one during surgery and one postoperatively. The Haddad 2006 trial compared 72-hour changes with
96-hour changes, and the Cobb 1992; Eyer 1990; Nakae 2010;
and Rijnders 2004 trials involved central venous catheters. The
other excluded study was not an RCT (Arnold 1977).
Risk of bias in included studies
See individual ’Risk of bias’ tables and Figure 1; Figure 2.
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
9
Figure 1. Risk of bias graph: review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item presented as
percentages across all included studies.
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
10
Figure 2. Risk of bias summary: review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item for each included
study.
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
11
Allocation
Generation of random allocation sequence
All of the investigators reported that they used a computer-based
sequence generator (Barker 2004; Nishanth 2009; Rickard 2010;
Rickard 2012; Van Donk 2009; Webster 2007; Webster 2008).
Allocation concealment
Sealed envelopes were used for allocation concealment by Barker
2004; Nishanth 2009; and Van Donk 2009; the remaining four
trials used a central telephone or computer-based service (Rickard
2010; Rickard 2012; Webster 2007; Webster 2008).
Blinding
It was not possible to blind either the participants or the healthcare
providers in any of the trials.
Outcome assessment
The chief investigator assessed outcomes in the Barker 2004 and
the Nishanth 2009 trial. In the Van Donk 2009; Webster 2007;
and Webster 2008 trials, assessment was made by nurses caring
for the patient or by a dedicated IV service nurse. None of the
nurses were blinded to the group allocation but nor were any of
them associated with the trial. In the Rickard 2010 and Rickard
2012 trials, outcome assessment was undertaken by a dedicated
research nurse who was also aware of the allocation.
approximately one third of the participants had protocol violations and in the Rickard 2012 trial, protocol violations occurred
in 16% of the participants. Primarily these were in the routine
replacement groups, where catheters were not replaced within the
specified time period, reflecting day to day clinical practice.
Selective reporting
Study protocols were available for five trials (Rickard 2010;
Rickard 2012; Van Donk 2009; Webster 2007; Webster 2008)
and reporting followed pre-planned analyses. Barker 2004 and
Nishanth 2009 reported on the expected primary outcomes.
Other potential sources of bias
In the Barker 2004 trial there were two definitions of phlebitis,
one of which stated that two symptoms were necessary; yet it appears that erythema alone was diagnosed as phlebitis, with severity based on the area of inflammation. The extreme results in the
Nishanth 2009 trial, where 100% of participants in the clinicallyindicated group developed phlebitis compared with 9% in the
two-day change group, suggests that chance or other unknown
bias affected results in this small trial.
Effects of interventions
See: Summary of findings for the main comparison Clinicallyindicated versus routine changes for peripheral venous catheterrelated complications
Routine changes versus clinically-indicated changes
Incomplete outcome data
A flow chart was not provided by Barker 2004, so the numbers
screened and eligible were unclear, nor were any dropouts reported.
There was also an imbalance in the number of participants reported by group in this trial, which may indicate either a failure
in the randomisation process in such a small trial or incomplete
reporting. The number of protocol violations by group was not
reported. There was complete reporting in the other six trials, all
of which provided a flow of participants through each stage and
used intention-to-treat analysis (Nishanth 2009; Rickard 2010;
Rickard 2012; Van Donk 2009; Webster 2007; Webster 2008).
In the Webster 2007; Webster 2008; and Van Donk 2009 trials,
Catheter-related bloodstream infection (Analysis 1.1)
Catheter-related bloodstream infection was assessed in five trials
(4806 patients) (Rickard 2010; Rickard 2012; Van Donk 2009;
Webster 2007; Webster 2008). There were no reported CRBSIs
in three of these trials (Rickard 2010; Van Donk 2009; Webster
2007). When results from the remaining two trials were combined
there was a 39% reduction in the CRBSI rate favouring the clinically-indicated group (clinically-indicated 1/2365; routine change
2/2441). The RR was 0.61 but the confidence intervals were wide,
creating uncertainty around the estimate (95% CI 0.08 to 4.68;
P = 0.64) (Figure 3).
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
12
Figure 3. Forest plot of comparison: 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change, outcome: 1.1 Catheterrelated bloodstream infection.
Phlebitis (Analysis 1.2 and Analysis 1.3)
All of the included studies reported incidence of phlebitis (4895
patients). When results of all trials were combined, heterogeneity was 65%. Consequently, we conducted a sensitivity analysis and removed the two trials with less than 100 participants,
both of which used a two-day replacement schedule (Barker 2004;
Nishanth 2009). Removing the two trials eliminated the hetero-
geneity (I2 = 0). Data from the remaining studies (4806 participants) were combined (Rickard 2010; Rickard 2012; Van Donk
2009; Webster 2007; Webster 2008). There was no difference in
this outcome whether catheters were changed according to clinical indications or routinely (clinically-indicated 186/2365; 3-day
change 166/2441; RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.39; P = 0.20). This
result was unaffected by whether the infusion was continuous or
intermittent (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Forest plot of comparison: 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change, outcome: 1.2 Phlebitis.
We also analysed the data by number of device days and, again,
no differences between groups were observed (RR 1.03, 95% CI
0.84 to 1.27; P = 0.75) (Analysis 1.3; Figure 5). In the two trials
using a two-day replacement schedule compared with clinicallyindicated changes (Barker 2004; Nishanth 2009), heterogeneity
was over 60% so results were not combined. In the first of these
two trials Barker 2004 reported that 11/26 (42.3%) participants
in the clinically-indicated group developed phlebitis compared
with 1/21 (4.8%) in the two-day change group. Nishanth 2009
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
13
diagnosed all of the participants in the clinically-indicated group
(21/21; 100.0%) with phlebitis and 2/21 (9.5%) in the two-day
group.
Figure 5. Forest plot of comparison: 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change, outcome: 1.3 Phlebitis per
device days.
All-cause bloodstream infection (Analysis 1.4)
One trial assessed this outcome (Rickard 2012). There was no
difference in the all-cause bloodstream infection rate between the
two groups (clinically-indicated: 4/1593 (0.02%); routine change
9/1690 (0.05%); P = 0.21) (Figure 6).
Figure 6. Forest plot of comparison: 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change, outcome: 1.4 All-cause
bloodstream infection.
Infiltration (Analysis 1.5)
A total of four trials assessed infiltration in 4606 participants
(Rickard 2010; Rickard 2012; Webster 2007; Webster 2008). Infiltration of fluid into surrounding tissues was reported less often
in the routine change group (452/2346; 19.3%) compared with
the clinically-indicated group (518/2260; 22.9%). The RR was
1.17 (95% Ci 1.05 to 1.31; P = 0.004) (Figure 7).
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
14
Figure 7. Forest plot of comparison: 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change, outcome: 1.5 Infiltration.
Local infection (Analysis 1.6)
Among the four trials measuring local infection (Rickard 2010;
Rickard 2012; Webster 2007; Webster 2008) no differences were
found between groups (clinically-indicated 2/2260 (0.09%); routine replacement 0/2346 (0.0%); RR 4.96, 95% CI 0.24 to
102.98; P = 0.30) (Figure 8).
Figure 8. Forest plot of comparison: 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change, outcome: 1.6 Local
infection.
Catheter blockage (Analysis 1.7)
Five of the seven trials, reporting on 4806 participants, were included in this analysis (Rickard 2010; Rickard 2012; Van Donk
2009; Webster 2007; Webster 2008). Rates of catheter failure
due to blockage were similar between groups (clinically-indicated
398/2395 (16.6%); routine replacement 377/2441 (15.40%); RR
1.25, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.71; P = 0.16) (Figure 9).
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
15
Figure 9. Forest plot of comparison: 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change, outcome: 1.7 Blockage.
Mortality (Analysis 1.8)
Four deaths occurred in each group in the one trial (Rickard 2012)
that assessed this outcome (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.23; P =
0.93) (Figure 10).
Figure 10. Forest plot of comparison: 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change, outcome: 1.8 Mortality.
Cost (Analysis 1.9)
In each of the three trials measuring this outcome (4244 participants) (Rickard 2012; Webster 2007; Webster 2008) cannulation
costs, measured in Australian dollars (AUD), were lower by approximately AUD 7.00 in the clinically-indicated group (MD 6.96, 95% CI -9.05 to -4.86; P ≤ 0.00001) (Figure 11).
Figure 11. Forest plot of comparison: 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change, outcome: 1.9 Cost.
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
16
DISCUSSION
Summary of main results
This systematic review analysed catheter-related bloodstream infection, phlebitis, other reasons for catheter failure, and cost with
the intention of comparing routine catheter changes (at between
two and four days) with replacing the catheter only if clinical signs
were apparent.
The primary outcomes of this review suggest that patients are not
adversely affected if the catheter is changed based on clinical indications rather than routinely, as recommended by the US Centers
of Disease Control (O’Grady 2011). The rate of catheter-related
bloodstream infection was similar in both groups, between 0.0%
and 0.3%, and comparable to that previously reported in prospective studies (Maki 2006). A marginal but non-significant increase
in the phlebitis rate in the clinically-indicated group was apparent
when data were analysed by patient but became less perceptible
when data were analysed per 1000 device days, which is a more
clinically useful measure. In addition, most cases of phlebitis are
mild in nature, requiring no treatment or removal of the catheter.
There was no indication in our review that phlebitis was a precursor to bloodstream infection.
Catheter failure due to blockage was more frequent in the clinically-indicated group. This could be expected; all catheters will
fail eventually and will need to be replaced if treatment is ongoing.
The outcome is not clinically meaningful, it is simply an indicator of the longer dwell times in the clinically-indicated group.
Since the ‘treatment’ for a blocked catheter is replacement of the
catheter, it would not be of any benefit to the patient to replace
the catheter earlier since it would not reduce the need for replacement, and would instead increase the chance of re-cannulation.
Many catheters do not fail over the course of IV treatment, even
with extended dwell times.
Cost was significantly less, around AUD 7, in the clinically-indicated group. This result was based on three studies and results
were consistent and intuitively logical (fewer catheters, less clinician time and equipment). Although, this is a seemingly small
amount, it corresponds to approximately 11% of catheter-related
expenditure, which may represent a considerable saving to organisations with high use (Figure 11).
Overall completeness and applicability of
evidence
Trials included in this systematic review directly addressed the review question and we were able to conduct a number of metaanalyses. Apart from the Barker 2004 and Nishanth 2009 trials,
results from the other five trials were quite similar. Participants
were representative of those usually managed in health care. They
included patients in both acute and community settings and measured outcomes important to clinicians and patients, providing
useful external validity. It has been suggested that insertion and
management by an IV team may explain the inefficacy of routine
replacement to prevent complications (Maki 2008), yet we saw
no effect in trials that had significant numbers inserted by an IV
team (Webster 2007; Webster 2008) or trials where insertion was
by the general medical and nursing staff (Rickard 2010; Rickard
2012). In all of the trials except for Barker 2004 and Nishanth
2009 standard guidelines were followed for the control group, that
is catheters were changed at between 72 and 96 hours, reflecting
usual care. In the Barker 2004 and Nishanth 2009 trials, catheters
were changed every 48 hours. None of the trials, except Rickard
2012, were powered to report on phlebitis alone, and some of
the trials were very small. For example, the studies that showed
statistically lower phlebitis rates in the clinically-indicated group
(Barker 2004; Nishanth 2009) involved just 47 and 42 people
respectively and showed differences between the control and intervention groups that were quite dissimilar to all of the other
studies. Consequently, results of these two trials should be interpreted with caution, particularly results from the Nishanth 2009
trial where all patients in the clinically-indicated group developed
phlebitis compared with none in the two-day change group. It
seems unlikely that these results would have occurred by chance
but correspondence with trial authors shed no further light on
these extreme results. There are no other published papers showing phlebitis rates of 100%.
Five of the seven included trials were conducted in Australia; this
imbalance is difficult to understand. It would be useful to see
similar studies from other healthcare systems to test the robustness
of results from this review.
Quality of the evidence
Limitations in study design and implementation
Risk of bias was assessed according to six components: sequence
generation, allocation concealment, blinding, selective outcome
reporting, incomplete follow up, and other potential biases. All
of the studies avoided selection bias and ensured allocation concealment. The methodological quality of most of the RCTs was
high with one exception. It was not possible to blind the primary
outcome in any of the trials. Blinding was not possible because it
was necessary to identify the catheter as either ’routine change’ or
’clinically indicated’, to prevent inadvertent routine replacement
of catheters in the intervention group. It is unclear if this had any
bearing on outcomes but the review authors argue that it is unlikely
(Figure 1; Figure 2). In the Barker 2004 and Nishanth 2009 trials,
the investigator was directly involved in diagnosing phlebitis; in all
of the other studies either medical staff, ward nurses, IV therapy
staff, or research nurses evaluated the outcomes. As one author
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
17
noted, it is routine practice to record reasons for removal of an
intravenous catheter in the medical record, and it is unlikely that
such entries would be falsified based on group allocation (Webster
2008).
Indirectness of evidence
All of the trials compared routine changes with clinically-indicated
changes. However, five trials used a three to four-day change schedule and two trials changed catheters every two days. Consequently,
three to four-day results may provide indirect evidence for two-day
changes, conversely two-day changes provide indirect evidence for
a three to four-day change schedule. Additionally, only one study
(Nishanth 2009) included patients who were from a developing
country and who were “usually asthenic, many underhydrated/
dehydrated on admission” (personal correspondence), so the evidence may be regarded as indirect for these types of patients.
Unexplained heterogeneity or inconsistency of results
When we combined results of studies that investigated the effect
of different catheter replacement schedules on phlebitis, the heterogeneity was high. This was probably due to the different schedules for the routine catheter changes or population differences, or
both. Small sample sizes may also have contributed to the extreme
results, which caused the heterogeneity.
Imprecision of results
Confidence intervals were wide in the pooled outcomes of
catheter-related bloodstream infection, local infection, and mortality (Figure 3; Figure 8; Figure 10) indicating a high level of
uncertainty around the effect size. Further research is therefore
very likely to have an important impact on the confidence in the
estimate of effect for these outcomes.
Publication bias
We feel confident that our comprehensive electronic searches identified all existing, published, randomised controlled trials addressing the review question.
Agreements and disagreements with other
studies or reviews
Our results concur with several prospective observational studies,
which found no additional risk in extending IVD dwell times
(Bregenzer 1998; Catney 2001; Homer 1998; White 2001). We
believe the reason for this is the similarity in the mean dwell times
between the intervention and control arms. Each of the included
studies were pragmatic trials and, in real life, many catheters are
not changed within the prescribed time frames. For example, in
three-day protocols the 72-hour period may occur in the middle of
the night; or a decision may be made to leave an existing catheter
in place if the patient is due for discharge the following day or
if they are thought to have poor veins. Conversely, the catheter
may need to be removed early in any clinically-indicated group if
the patient’s catheter becomes blocked or infiltration or phlebitis
occurs, or the patient is discharged within a couple of days of
catheter insertion.
Our results also support the CDC guidelines for peripheral
catheter replacement in children, which state “replace peripheral
catheters in children only when clinically indicated” (O’Grady
2011). Similarly, in a guideline for timing peripheral intravenous
replacement (Ho 2011) findings from the original version of this
review were replicated (Webster 2010).
AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS
Implications for practice
The review found no difference in catheter-related bloodstream infection or phlebitis rates whether peripheral intravenous catheters
are changed routinely every 72 to 96 hours or when clinically indicated. The consistency in these results, which now include a
very large multi-site study, indicate that healthcare organisations
should adopt a clinically-indicated replacement policy. This would
provide significant cost savings and would also be welcomed by
patients, who would be spared the unnecessary pain of routine
re-sites in the absence of clinical indications. Busy clinical staff
would also reduce time spent on this intervention. To minimise
peripheral catheter-related complications, the insertion site should
be inspected at each shift change and the catheter removed if signs
of inflammation, infiltration, or blockage are present.
Implications for research
Potential biases in the review process
Although the authors were investigators in one or more of the included trials, clearly described procedures were followed to prevent
potential biases in the review process. A careful literature search
was conducted and the methods we used are transparent and reproducible. None of the authors has any conflict of interests.
Any future trial should use standard definitions for phlebitis and
be sufficiently large to show true differences. Based on results from
the meta-analysis in this review, at least 2500 participants would
be required in each arm of any future trial to show a lowering of
phlebitis rates from 8% to 6% (α = 0.05 and 80% power). Neither
pain nor satisfaction were measured in any of the reviewed studies
and would be a useful addition to any future trial. Although costs
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
18
were estimated in some of the included trials, a careful economic
analysis of routine versus clinically-indicated replacement would
be helpful for healthcare administrators. There was also some evidence from this review that different results may occur when the
population is drawn from a developing country. Consequently,
trials conducted in a wider variety of healthcare systems would
add to the external validity of the review’s results.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are grateful to Marlene Stewart, PVD Review Group Managing
Editor, for her support and speedy responses, and to the editors
Mr Paul Tisi and Dr Jackie Price for their useful comments.
REFERENCES
References to studies included in this review
Barker 2004 {published and unpublished data}
Barker P, Anderson ADG, Macfie J. Randomised clinical
trial of elective re-siting of intravenous cannulae. Annals of
the Royal College of Surgeons of England 2004;86(4):281–3.
Nishanth 2009 {published data only}
Nishanth S, Sivaram G, Kalayarasan R, Kate V,
Ananthakrishnan N. Does elective re-siting of intravenous
cannulae decrease peripheral thrombophlebitis? A
randomized controlled study. The International Medical
Journal of India 2009;22(2):60–2.
Rickard 2010 {published and unpublished data}
Rickard CM, McCann D, Munnings J, McGrail M. Routine
resite of peripheral intravenous devices every 3 days did not
reduce complications compared with clinically indicated
resite: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Medicine 2010;
8:53.
Rickard 2012 {published and unpublished data}
Rickard CM, Webster J, Wallis MC, Marsh N, McGrail
MR, French V, et al.Routine versus clinically indicated
replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters: A
randomised equivalence trial. Lancet 2012;380(9847):
1066–74.
Van Donk 2009 {published and unpublished data}
Van Donk P, Rickard CM, McGrail MR, Doolan G.
Routine replacement versus clinical monitoring of peripheral
intravenous catheters in a regional hospital in the home
program: A randomized controlled trial. Infection Control
and Hospital Epidemiology 2009;30(9):915–7.
Webster 2007 {published and unpublished data}
Webster J, Lloyd S, Hopkins T, Osborne S, Yaxley M.
Developing a research base for intravenous peripheral
cannula re-sites (DRIP trial). A randomised controlled trial
of hospital in-patients. International Journal of Nursing
Studies 2007;44(5):664–71.
Webster 2008 {published and unpublished data}
Webster J, Clarke S, Paterson D, Hutton A, van Dyke S,
Gale C, et al.Routine care of peripheral intravenous catheters
versus clinically indicated replacement: randomised
controlled trial. BMJ 2008;337:a339.
References to studies excluded from this review
Arnold 1977 {published data only}
Arnold RE, Elliot EK, Holmes BH. The importance
of frequent examination of infusion sites in preventing
postinfusion phlebitis. Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics
1977;145(1):19–20.
Cobb 1992 {published data only}
Cobb DK, High KP, Sawyer RG, Sable CA, Adams RB,
Lindley DA, et al.A controlled trial of scheduled replacement
of central venous and pulmonary-artery catheters. The New
England Journal of Medicine 1992;327(15):1062–8.
Eyer 1990 {published data only}
Eyer S, Brummitt C, Crossley K, Siegel R, Cerra F. Catheterrelated sepsis: prospective, randomized study of three
methods of long-term catheter maintenance. Critical Care
Medicine 1990;18(10):1073–9.
Haddad 2006 {published data only}
Haddad FG, Waked CH, Zein EF. Peripheral venous
catheter inflammation. A randomized prospective trial. Le
Journal Médical Libanais 2006;54:139–45.
Kerin 1991 {published data only}
Kerin MJ, Pickford IR, Jaeger H, Couse NF, Mitchell CJ,
Macfie J. A prospective and randomised study comparing
the incidence of infusion phlebitis during continuous and
cyclic peripheral parenteral nutrition. Clinical Nutrition
1991;10(6):315–9.
May 1996 {published data only}
May J, Murchan P, MacFie J, Sedman P, Donat P, Palmer D,
et al.Prospective study of the aetiology of infusion phlebitis
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
19
and line failure during peripheral parenteral nutrition.
British Journal of Surgery 1996;83(8):1091–4.
Nakae 2010 {published data only}
Nakae H, Igarashi T, Tajimi K. Catheter-related infections
via temporary vascular access catheters: a randomized
prospective study. Artificial Organs 2010;34(3):E72–6.
Panadero 2002 {published data only}
Panadero A, Iohom G, Taj J, Mackay N, Shorten G. A
dedicated intravenous cannula for postoperative use. Effect
on incidence and severity of phlebitis. Anaesthesia 2002;57
(9):921–5.
Rijnders 2004 {published data only}
Rijnders BJ, Peetermans WE, Verwaest C, Wilmer A, Van
Wijngaerden E. Watchful waiting versus immediate catheter
removal in ICU patients with suspected catheter-related
infection: a randomized trial. Intensive Care Medicine 2004;
30(6):1073–80.
Additional references
Band 1980
Band JD, Maki DG. Steel needles used for intravenous
therapy. Morbidity in patients with hematologic
malignancy. Archives of Internal Medicine 1980;140(1):
31–4.
Bregenzer 1998
Bregenzer T, Conen D, Sakmann P, Widmer AF. Is routine
replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters necessary?.
Archives of Internal Medicine 1998;158:51–6.
Catney 2001
Catney MR, Hillis S, Wakefield B, Simpson L, Domino L,
Keller S, et al.Relationship between peripheral intravenous
catheter dwell time and the development of phlebitis and
infiltration. Journal of Infusion Nursing 2001;24(5):332–41.
Cornely 2002
Cornely OA, Bethe U, Pauls R, Waldschmidt D. Peripheral
Teflon catheters: factors determining incidence of phlebitis
and duration of cannulation. Infection Control and Hospital
Epidemiology 2002;23:249–53.
Everitt 1997
Everitt NJ, Krupowicz DW, Evans JA, McMahon MJ.
Ultrasonographic investigation of the pathogenesis of
infusion thrombophlebitis. British Journal of Surgery 1997;
84:642–5.
Gupta 2007
Gupta A Mehta Y, Juneja R, Trehan N. The effect of
cannula material on the incidence of peripheral venous
thrombophlebitis. Anaesthesia 2007;62:1139–42.
Higgins 2003
Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG.
Measuring inconsistencies in meta-analysis. BMJ 2003;327
(7414):557–60.
Higgins 2008
Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ. Selecting studies and collecting data.
In: Higgins JPT, Green S editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for
Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Wiley-Blackwell, 2008.
Higgins 2011a
Higgins JPT, Altman DG, and Sterne JAC on behalf
of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group and the
Cochrane Bias Methods Group. Chapter 8: Assessing
risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green
S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews
of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011].
The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from
www.cochrane-handbook.org.
Ho 2011
Ho KHM, Cheung DSK. Guidelines on timing in replacing
peripheral intravenous catheters. Journal of Clinical Nursing
2011;21(11-12):1499–506.
Homer 1998
Homer LD, Holmes KR. Risks associated with 72- and 96hour peripheral intravenous catheter dwell times. Journal of
Intravenous Nursing 1998;21:301–5.
Lai 1998
Lai KK. Safety of prolonging peripheral cannula and i.v.
tubing use from 72 hours to 96 hours. American Journal of
Infection Control 1998;26:66–70.
Maddox 1977
Maddox RR, Rush DR, Rapp RP, Foster TS, Mazella V,
McKean HE. Double-blind study to investigate methods to
prevent cephalothin-induced phlebitis. American Journal of
Hospital Pharmacy 1977;34:29–34.
Maki 1973
Maki DG, Goldman DA, Rhame FS. Infection control in
intravenous therapy. Annals of Internal Medicine 1973;79
(6):867–87.
Maki 1991
Maki DG, Ringer M. Risk factors for infusion-related
phlebitis with small peripheral venous catheters. A
randomized controlled trial. Annals of Internal Medicine
1991;114:845–54.
Maki 2006
Maki DG, Kluger DM, Crnich CJ. The risk of bloodstream
infection in adults with different intravascular devices: a
systematic review of 200 published prospective studies.
Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2006;81(9):1159–71.
Maki 2008
Maki DG. Improving the safety of peripheral intravenous
catheters. BMJ 2008;337(7662):122–3.
Monreal 1999
Monreal M, Quilez F, Rey-Joly C, Vega J, Torres T, Valero
P, et al.Infusion phlebitis in patients with acute pneumonia:
a prospective study. Chest 1999;115:1576–80.
O’Grady 2011
O’Grady NP, Alexander M, Burns LA, Dellinger EP,
Garland J, Heard SO, et al.2011 Guidelines for the
prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. http:
//www.cdc.gov/hicpac/bsi/bsi-guidelines-2011.html.
Schnemann 2011
Schnemann HJ, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Higgins JPT,
Deeks JJ, Glasziuo P, et al.Chapter 12: Interpreting results
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
20
and drawing conclusions. In: Higgins JPT, Green S
(editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews
of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011).
Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
Tager 1983
Tager IB, Ginsberg MB, Ellis SE, Walsh NE, Dupont I,
Simchen E, et al.The Rhode Island Nosocomial Infection
Consortium. An epidemiologic study of the risks associated
with peripheral intravenous catheters. American Journal of
Epidemiology 1983;118(6):839–51.
Uslusoy 2008
Uslusoy E, Mete S. Predisposing factors to phlebitis in
patients with peripheral intravenous catheters: a descriptive
study. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners
2008;20:172–80.
White 2001
White SA. Peripheral intravenous therapy-related phlebitis
rates in an adult population. Journal of Intravenous Nursing
2001;24:19–24.
References to other published versions of this review
Webster 2010
Webster J, Osborne S, Rickard C, Hall J. Clinicallyindicated replacement versus routine replacement of
peripheral venous catheters. Cochrane Database of
Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/
14651858.CD007798.pub2]
∗
Indicates the major publication for the study
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
21
CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDIES
Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]
Barker 2004
Methods
Study design: Single-centre RCT.
Method of randomisation: Computer generated.
Concealment of allocation: Sealed envelopes.
Participants
Country: England.
Number: 47 patients in general medical or surgical wards. Clinically indicated: 43
catheters were inserted in 26 patients. Routine replacement: 41 catheters were inserted
in 21 patients
Age: Clinically indicated 60.5 yrs (15.5); routine replacement 62.7 yrs (18.2)
Sex (M/F): Clinically indicated 15/11; routine replacement 14/7.
Inclusion criteria: Hospital inpatients receiving crystalloids and drugs.
Exclusion criteria: Not stated.
Interventions
Clinically indicated: Catheters were removed if the site became painful, the catheter
dislodged or there were signs of PVT
Routine replacement: Catheters were replaced every 48 hours.
Outcomes
Primary: Incidence of PVT defined as “the development of two or more of the following:
pain, erythema, swelling, excessive warmth or a palpable venous cord”
Notes
PVT was defined as “the development of two or more of the following: pain, erythema,
swelling, excessive warmth or a palpable venous cord”. However, in the discussion, the
author stated that “even a small area of erythema was recorded as phlebitis” (i.e., only
one sign)
It is unclear what proportion of patients were on continuous infusion
Catheters were inserted “at the instruction of the principal investigator”
“All patients were reviewed daily by the principal investigator, and examined for signs of
PVT at the current and all previous infusion sites”
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors’ judgement
Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection Low risk
bias)
Comment: Computer generated (personal
communication with author).
Allocation concealment (selection bias)
Comment: Sealed envelopes (personal
communication with author).
Low risk
Blinding (performance bias and detection High risk
bias)
All outcomes
Comment: Neither study personnel nor
participants were blinded.
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
22
Barker 2004
(Continued)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes
High risk
Comment: In this small sample, there were
five fewer patients in the routine replacement group. No explanation was provided
for the unequal sample size. No dropouts
or loss to follow up were reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias)
Low risk
Comment: Phlebitis was the only outcome
planned.
Other bias
High risk
Comment: The chief investigator allocated
patients and was responsible for outcome
evaluation
No sample size calculation.
Nishanth 2009
Methods
Study design: Single-centre RCT.
Method of randomisation: Not stated
Concealment of allocation: Sequentially numbered sealed envelopes.
Participants
Country: India.
Number: 42 patients in surgical wards. Clinically indicated: 21. Routine replacement:
21
Age: Clinically indicated 40.2 yrs (15.0); routine replacement 42.9 yrs (15.0)
Sex (M/F): Clinically indicated 17/4; routine replacement 16/5.
Inclusion criteria: Hospital inpatients admitted for major abdominal surgery
Exclusion criteria: Receiving total parenteral nutrition, duration of therapy expected to
be < three days, if a cannula was already in situ, terminally ill patients
Interventions
Clinically indicated: Catheters were removed if the site became painful, the catheter
dislodged or there were signs of PVT
Routine replacement: Catheters were replaced every 48 hours.
Outcomes
Primary: Incidence of PVT defined as “the development of two or more of the following:
pain, erythema, swelling, excessive warmth or a palpable venous cord”
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors’ judgement
Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection Unclear risk
bias)
Not stated.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)
Quote “group name was placed (on) an
opaque serially numbered sealed envelope
Low risk
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
23
Nishanth 2009
(Continued)
(SNOSE).”
Comment: Presumably the authors meant
’in’ an opaque serially numbered sealed envelope - based on subsequent information
Blinding (performance bias and detection High risk
bias)
All outcomes
Evidence for participants: Quote “unblinded study”.
Evidence for personnel: As above.
Evidence for outcomes: As above.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes
Low risk
Comment: Data for all patients were available.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)
Low risk
Comment: Stated outcomes were reported
but original protocol not sighted
Other bias
Unclear risk
Extreme results: In this small trial, 100%
of participants in the clinically indicated
group developed phlebitis compared with
9% in the 2-day change group, which suggests that chance or other unknown bias affected results
Rickard 2010
Methods
Study design: Single-centre RCT.
Method of randomisation: Computer generated.
Concealment of allocation: Telephone service.
Participants
Country: Australia.
Number: 362 patients requiring IV therapy in general medical or surgical wards. Clinically indicated: 280 catheters were inserted in 185 patients. Routine replacement: 323
catheters were inserted in 177 patients
Age: Clinically indicated 62.7 yrs (15.5); routine replacement 65.1 yrs (17.3)
Sex (M/F): Clinically indicated 82/103; routine replacement 81/91.
Inclusion criteria: Patients in over 18 years, expected to have a peripheral intravenous
device (IVD), requiring IV therapy for at least 4 days
Exclusion criteria: Patients who were immunosuppressed, had an existing bloodstream
infection or those in whom an IVD had been in place for > 48 hours
Interventions
Clinically indicated: Catheters were removed if there were signs of phlebitis, local
infection, bacteraemia, infiltration or blockage
Routine replacement: Catheters were replaced every 72 - 96 hours.
Outcomes
Primary: Phlebitis per person and per 1000 IVD days (defined as two or more of the
following: pain, erythema, purulence, infiltration, palpable venous cord). IVD-related
bacteraemia
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
24
Rickard 2010
(Continued)
Secondary: Hours of catheterisation; number of IV devices; device-related bloodstream
infection; infiltration; local infection
Notes
Approximately 75% of patients were receiving a continuous infusion
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors’ judgement
Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection Low risk
bias)
Comment: Computer generated.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)
Quote “assignment was concealed until
randomisation by use of a telephone service”
Low risk
Blinding (performance bias and detection High risk
bias)
All outcomes
Comment: Neither study personnel nor
participants were blinded.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes
Low risk
Comment: Results from all enrolled patients were reported.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)
Low risk
Comment: The protocol was available. All
nominated outcomes were reported
Other bias
Unclear risk
Comment: Significantly more patients in
the routine change group received IV antibiotics (73.1% versus 62.9%)
Rickard 2012
Methods
Study design: Multi-centre RCT.
Method of randomisation: Computer generated, stratified by site.
Concealment of allocation: Allocation concealed until eligibility criteria was entered
into a hand-held computer
Participants
Country: Australia.
Number: 3283 patients requiring IV therapy in general medical or surgical wards. Clinically indicated: 1593 patients. Routine replacement: 1690 patients
Age: Clinically indicated 55.1 yrs (18.6); routine replacement 55.0 yrs (18.4)
Sex (M/F): Clinically indicated 1022/571; routine replacement 1034/656
Inclusion criteria: Patients, or their representative able to provide written consent; over
18 years, expected to have a peripheral intravenous device (IVD) in situ, requiring IV
therapy for at least 4 days
Exclusion criteria: Patients who were immunosuppressed, had an existing blood stream
infection or those in whom an IVD had been in place for > 48 hours or it was planned
for the catheter to be removed < 24 hours
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
25
Rickard 2012
(Continued)
Interventions
Clinically indicated: Catheters were removed if there were signs of phlebitis, local
infection, bacteraemia, infiltration or blockage
Routine replacement: Catheters were replaced every 72 - 96 hours.
Outcomes
Primary: Phlebitis during catheterisation or within 48 hrs of removal (defined as two
or more of the following: pain, erythema, swelling, purulent discharge, palpable venous
cord)
Secondary: Catheter-related bloodstream infection, all-cause bloodstream infection, local venous infection, colonisation of the catheter tip, infusion failure, number of catheters
per patient, overall duration of intravenous therapy, cost, mortality
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors’ judgement
Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection Low risk
bias)
Quote: “Random allocations were computer-generated”.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)
Quote: “Random allocations were computer-generated on a hand-held device, at
the point of each patient’s entry, and thus
were concealed to patients, clinical staff and
research staff until this time”
Low risk
Blinding (performance bias and detection High risk
bias)
All outcomes
Evidence for participants: Quote “Patients and clinical staff could not be
blinded”.
Evidence for personnel: Quote “Research
nurses were similarly not masked”.
Evidence for outcomes: Quote “... laboratory staff were masked for rating
of all microbiological end-points, and a
masked, independent medical rater diagnosed catheter-related infections and all
bloodstream infections”
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes
Low risk
ITT analysis reported.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)
Low risk
The protocol was available and all pre-defined outcomes were reported
Other bias
Low risk
No other known risks of bias.
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
26
Van Donk 2009
Methods
Study design: RCT.
Method of randomisation: Computer generated.
Concealment of allocation: Sealed envelopes.
Participants
Country: Australia.
Number: 200. Clinically indicated: 105 patients. Routine replacement: 95 patients
Age: Clinically indicated 62.8 yrs (18.2); routine replacement 54.5 yrs (19.0)
Sex (M/F): Not stated.
Inclusion criteria: Adult patients who could be treated at home for an acute illness and
had a 20, 22, or 24 gauge catheter inserted in an upper extremity
Exclusion criteria: Not stated.
Interventions
Clinically indicated: Catheters were removed if there were signs of phlebitis, local
infection, bacteraemia, infiltration or blockage
Routine replacement: Catheters were replaced every 72 - 96 hours.
Outcomes
Primary: Phlebitis per patient and per 1000 device days (phlebitis was defined as a total
score of 2 or more points from the following factors: pain (on a 10-point scale, 1 = 1
point, and 2 or more = 2 points; redness (less than 1cm = 1 point, and 1 or more cm =
2 points); swelling (as for redness); and discharge (haemoserous ooze under dressing = 1
point, and haemoserous ooze requiring dressing change or purulence = 2 points)
Also reported on: Suspected IVD-related bacteraemia and occlusion/blockage.
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors’ judgement
Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection Low risk
bias)
Comment: Computer generated allocation
(personal communication with author)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)
Quote: “Randomization was concealed until treatment via sealed envelopes”
Low risk
Blinding (performance bias and detection High risk
bias)
All outcomes
Comment: Neither study personnel nor
participants were blinded.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes
Low risk
Comment: Participant flow chart provided. Results from all enrolled patients
were reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias)
Low risk
Comment: All planned outcomes were reported.
Other bias
Low risk
No other known risks of bias.
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
27
Webster 2007
Methods
Study design: Single-centre RCT.
Method of randomisation: Computer generated.
Concealment of allocation: Allocation concealed until telephone contact made with
an independent person
Participants
Country: Australia.
Number: 206. Clinically indicated: 103 patients. Routine replacement: 103 patients
Age: Clinically indicated 60.2 yrs (16.2); routine replacement 63.1 yrs (17.3)
Sex (M/F): Clinically indicated 53/50; routine replacement 54/49.
Inclusion criteria: At least 18 yrs of age, expected to have a peripheral intravenous device
(IVD) in situ, requiring IV therapy for at least 4 days, catheter inserted by a member of
the IV team
Exclusion criteria: Immunosuppressed patients and those with an existing bloodstream
infection
Interventions
Clinically indicated: Catheters removed if there were signs of phlebitis, local infection,
bacteraemia, infiltration or blockage
Routine replacement: Catheters replaced every 3 days.
Outcomes
Primary: Composite measure of any reason for an unplanned catheter removal
Secondary: Cost (For intermittent infusion: 20 minutes nursing/medical time, a cannula, a 3 way tap, a basic dressing pack, gloves, a syringe, transparent adhesive dressing,
skin disinfection and local anaesthetic per insertion. For patients receiving a continuous
infusion: all the above costs plus the additional cost of replacing all associated lines,
solutions and additives which are discarded when an IV catheter is changed (based on
an intravenous administration set, 1 litre sodium chloride 0.09%)
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors’ judgement
Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection Low risk
bias)
Quote: “randomization was by computer
generated random number list, stratified by
oncology status”
Allocation concealment (selection bias)
Quote: “Allocation was made by phoning
a person who was independent of the recruitment process”
Low risk
Blinding (performance bias and detection High risk
bias)
All outcomes
Evidence for participants: Comment:
Participants could not be blinded.
Evidence for personnel: Quote “clinical
staff were subsequently aware of the treatment group”
Evidence for outcomes: Quote: “research
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
28
Webster 2007
(Continued)
staff had no involvement in nominating the
reason for catheter removal or in diagnosing
phlebitis”
“Staff in the microbiological laboratory
were blind to group assignment of catheters
submitted for testing”
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes
Low risk
Comment: All recruited patients were accounted for in the results.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)
Low risk
Comment: Protocol was available. All
planned outcomes were reported.
Other bias
Low risk
No other known risks of bias.
Webster 2008
Methods
Study design: Single-centre RCT.
Method of randomisation: Computer generated.
Concealment of allocation: Telephone randomisation.
Participants
Country: Australia.
Number: 755. Clinically indicated: 379 patients. Routine replacement: 376 patients
Age: Clinically indicated 60.1 yrs (17.1); routine replacement 58.8 yrs (18.8)
Sex (M/F): Clinically indicated 248/131; routine replacement 233/143.
Inclusion criteria: At least 18 yrs of age, expected to have a IVD in situ, requiring IV
therapy for at least 4 days
Exclusion criteria: Immunosuppressed patients and those with an existing bloodstream
infection
Interventions
Clinically indicated: Catheter removed if there were signs of phlebitis, local infection,
bacteraemia, infiltration or blockage
Routine replacement: Catheter replaced every 3 days.
Outcomes
Primary: A composite measure of phlebitis (defined as two or more of the following:
pain, erythema, purulence, infiltration, palpable venous cord) and infiltration
Secondary: Infusion-related costs. Cost (For intermittent infusion: 20-minutes nursing/
medical time, a cannula, a 3-way tap, a basic dressing pack, gloves, a syringe, transparent
adhesive dressing, skin disinfection and local anaesthetic per insertion. For patients
receiving a continuous infusion: all the above costs plus the additional cost of replacing
all associated lines, solutions and additives which are discarded when an IV catheter is
changed (based on an intravenous administration set, 1 litre sodium chloride 0.09%)
Individual reasons for catheter failure (occlusion/blockage, local infection)
Also reported: Bacteraemia rate.
Notes
Risk of bias
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
29
Webster 2008
(Continued)
Bias
Authors’ judgement
Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection Low risk
bias)
Quote: “Block randomisation was by a
computer generated random number list”
Allocation concealment (selection bias)
Quote: “.... telephoned a contact who was
independent of the recruitment process for
allocation consignment”
Low risk
Blinding (performance bias and detection High risk
bias)
All outcomes
Neither study personnel nor participants
were blinded.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes
Low risk
All recruited patients were accounted for in
the results.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)
Low risk
Protocol was available. All planned outcomes were reported.
Other bias
Low risk
No other known risks of bias.
IV: intravenous
IVD: peripheral intravenous device
PVT: peripheral vein infusion thrombophlebitis
RCT: randomised controlled trial
Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]
Study
Reason for exclusion
Arnold 1977
Not a randomised controlled trial
Cobb 1992
Involved central, not peripheral lines
Eyer 1990
Involved pulmonary artery or arterial catheters, not peripheral catheters
Haddad 2006
End point was lymphangitis
Kerin 1991
Patients were receiving parenteral nutrition
May 1996
Patients were receiving parenteral nutrition
Nakae 2010
Involved central, not peripheral lines
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
30
(Continued)
Panadero 2002
Compared the use of a single intraoperative and postoperative catheters with two catheters, one used intraoperatively
and a separate catheter for postoperative use
Rijnders 2004
Involved central, not peripheral lines
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
31
DATA AND ANALYSES
Comparison 1. Clinically-indicated versus routine change
Outcome or subgroup title
No. of
studies
No. of
participants
5
4806
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
0.61 [0.08, 4.68]
5
4
1
5
1
4
4
5
1
3
4806
4606
200
26191
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)
1.14 [0.93, 1.39]
1.11 [0.89, 1.39]
1.29 [0.85, 1.96]
1.03 [0.84, 1.27]
Totals not selected
1.17 [1.05, 1.31]
4.96 [0.24, 102.98]
1.25 [0.91, 1.71]
Totals not selected
-6.96 [-9.05, -4.86]
1 Catheter-related blood stream
infection
2 Phlebitis
2.1 Continuous infusion
2.2 Intermittent infusion
3 Phlebitis per device days
4 All-cause blood stream infection
5 Infiltration
6 Local infection
7 Blockage
8 Mortality
9 Cost
4606
4606
4806
4244
Statistical method
Effect size
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change, Outcome 1 Catheter-related blood
stream infection.
Review:
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters
Comparison: 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change
Outcome: 1 Catheter-related blood stream infection
Study or subgroup
Clinically indicated
Routine replacement
n/N
n/N
Risk Ratio
Weight
Rickard 2010
0/185
0/177
Rickard 2012
0/1593
1/1690
Van Donk 2009
0/105
0/95
Not estimable
Webster 2007
0/103
0/103
Not estimable
Webster 2008
1/379
1/376
40.8 %
0.99 [ 0.06, 15.80 ]
Total (95% CI)
2365
2441
100.0 %
0.61 [ 0.08, 4.68 ]
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Not estimable
59.2 %
0.35 [ 0.01, 8.67 ]
Total events: 1 (Clinically indicated), 2 (Routine replacement)
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.23, df = 1 (P = 0.63); I2 =0.0%
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.47 (P = 0.64)
Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
0.01
0.1
Favours cl-indicated
1
10
100
Favours 3-day
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
32
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change, Outcome 2 Phlebitis.
Review:
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters
Comparison: 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change
Outcome: 2 Phlebitis
Study or subgroup
Clinically indicated
Routine replacement
n/N
n/N
Risk Ratio
Weight
Rickard 2010
18/185
12/177
7.5 %
1.44 [ 0.71, 2.89 ]
Rickard 2012
114/1593
114/1690
67.4 %
1.06 [ 0.83, 1.36 ]
Webster 2007
1/103
2/103
1.2 %
0.50 [ 0.05, 5.43 ]
Webster 2008
16/379
12/376
7.3 %
1.32 [ 0.63, 2.76 ]
2260
2346
83.4 %
1.11 [ 0.89, 1.39 ]
37/105
26/95
16.6 %
1.29 [ 0.85, 1.96 ]
105
95
16.6 %
1.29 [ 0.85, 1.96 ]
2441
100.0 %
1.14 [ 0.93, 1.39 ]
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
1 Continuous infusion
Subtotal (95% CI)
Total events: 149 (Clinically indicated), 140 (Routine replacement)
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 1.29, df = 3 (P = 0.73); I2 =0.0%
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.91 (P = 0.36)
2 Intermittent infusion
Van Donk 2009
Subtotal (95% CI)
Total events: 37 (Clinically indicated), 26 (Routine replacement)
Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.19 (P = 0.24)
Total (95% CI)
2365
Total events: 186 (Clinically indicated), 166 (Routine replacement)
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 1.67, df = 4 (P = 0.80); I2 =0.0%
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.29 (P = 0.20)
Test for subgroup differences: Chi2 = 0.38, df = 1 (P = 0.54), I2 =0.0%
0.05
0.2
Favours cl-indicated
1
5
20
Favours 3-day
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
33
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change, Outcome 3 Phlebitis per device days.
Review:
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters
Comparison: 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change
Outcome: 3 Phlebitis per device days
Study or subgroup
Clinically indicated
Routine replacement
n/N
n/N
Risk Ratio
Weight
Rickard 2010
18/1120
12/970
7.5 %
1.30 [ 0.63, 2.68 ]
Rickard 2012
114/8693
114/8719
66.3 %
1.00 [ 0.77, 1.30 ]
Van Donk 2009
37/698
26/508
17.5 %
1.04 [ 0.64, 1.69 ]
Webster 2007
1/522
2/548
1.1 %
0.52 [ 0.05, 5.77 ]
Webster 2008
16/2393
12/2020
7.6 %
1.13 [ 0.53, 2.37 ]
Total (95% CI)
13426
12765
100.0 %
1.03 [ 0.84, 1.27 ]
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Total events: 186 (Clinically indicated), 166 (Routine replacement)
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.79, df = 4 (P = 0.94); I2 =0.0%
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.32 (P = 0.75)
Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
0.05
0.2
1
Favours cl-indicated
5
20
Favours 3-day
Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change, Outcome 4 All-cause blood stream
infection.
Review:
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters
Comparison: 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change
Outcome: 4 All-cause blood stream infection
Study or subgroup
Rickard 2012
Clinically indicated
Routine replacement
n/N
n/N
4/1593
9/1690
Risk Ratio
Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
0.47 [ 0.15, 1.53 ]
0.01
0.1
1
Favours cl-indicated
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
10
100
Favours 3-day
34
Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change, Outcome 5 Infiltration.
Review:
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters
Comparison: 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change
Outcome: 5 Infiltration
Study or subgroup
Clinically indicated
Routine replacement
n/N
n/N
Rickard 2010
61/185
53/177
12.1 %
1.10 [ 0.81, 1.49 ]
Rickard 2012
279/1593
235/1690
51.1 %
1.26 [ 1.07, 1.48 ]
Webster 2007
43/103
44/103
9.8 %
0.98 [ 0.71, 1.35 ]
Webster 2008
135/379
120/376
27.0 %
1.12 [ 0.91, 1.36 ]
2260
2346
100.0 %
1.17 [ 1.05, 1.31 ]
Total (95% CI)
Risk Ratio
Weight
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Total events: 518 (Clinically indicated), 452 (Routine replacement)
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 2.43, df = 3 (P = 0.49); I2 =0.0%
Test for overall effect: Z = 2.87 (P = 0.0041)
Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
0.5
0.7
Favours cl-indicated
1
1.5
2
Favours 3-day
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
35
Analysis 1.6. Comparison 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change, Outcome 6 Local infection.
Review:
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters
Comparison: 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change
Outcome: 6 Local infection
Study or subgroup
Clinically indicated
Routine replacement
n/N
n/N
Risk Ratio
Weight
Rickard 2010
0/185
0/177
Not estimable
Rickard 2012
0/1593
0/1690
Not estimable
Webster 2007
0/103
0/103
Not estimable
Webster 2008
2/379
0/376
100.0 %
4.96 [ 0.24, 102.98 ]
Total (95% CI)
2260
2346
100.0 %
4.96 [ 0.24, 102.98 ]
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Total events: 2 (Clinically indicated), 0 (Routine replacement)
Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.03 (P = 0.30)
Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
0.01
0.1
Favours cl-indicated
1
10
100
Favours 3-day
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
36
Analysis 1.7. Comparison 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change, Outcome 7 Blockage.
Review:
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters
Comparison: 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change
Outcome: 7 Blockage
Study or subgroup
Clinically indicated
Routine replacement
Risk Ratio
MH,Random,95%
CI
Weight
Risk Ratio
MH,Random,95%
CI
n/N
n/N
Rickard 2010
4/185
5/177
5.3 %
0.77 [ 0.21, 2.80 ]
Rickard 2012
344/1593
344/1690
59.3 %
1.06 [ 0.93, 1.21 ]
Van Donk 2009
13/105
4/95
7.4 %
2.94 [ 0.99, 8.71 ]
Webster 2007
7/103
4/103
6.2 %
1.75 [ 0.53, 5.80 ]
Webster 2008
30/379
20/376
21.8 %
1.49 [ 0.86, 2.57 ]
Total (95% CI)
2365
2441
100.0 %
1.25 [ 0.91, 1.71 ]
Total events: 398 (Clinically indicated), 377 (Routine replacement)
Heterogeneity: Tau2 = 0.04; Chi2 = 5.51, df = 4 (P = 0.24); I2 =27%
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.39 (P = 0.16)
Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
0.05
0.2
1
Favours cl-indicated
5
20
Favours 3-day
Analysis 1.8. Comparison 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change, Outcome 8 Mortality.
Review:
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters
Comparison: 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change
Outcome: 8 Mortality
Study or subgroup
Rickard 2012
Clinically indicated
Routine replacement
n/N
n/N
4/1593
4/1690
Risk Ratio
Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
1.06 [ 0.27, 4.23 ]
0.01
0.1
1
Favours cl-indicated
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
10
100
Favours 3-day
37
Analysis 1.9. Comparison 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change, Outcome 9 Cost.
Review:
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters
Comparison: 1 Clinically-indicated versus routine change
Outcome: 9 Cost
Study or subgroup Clinically indicated
N
Rickard 2012
Mean
Difference
Routine replacement
Mean(SD)
1593 61.66 (39.46)
N
Mean(SD)
Weight
Mean
Difference
54.5 %
-7.58 [ -10.42, -4.74 ]
IV,Fixed,95% CI
IV,Fixed,95% CI
1690 69.24 (43.45)
Webster 2007
103
29.7 (16.4)
103
37.6 (20.2)
17.4 %
-7.90 [ -12.92, -2.88 ]
Webster 2008
379
41.05 (26.6)
376
46.22 (28.7)
28.1 %
-5.17 [ -9.12, -1.22 ]
Total (95% CI)
2075
2169
100.0 % -6.96 [ -9.05, -4.86 ]
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 1.11, df = 2 (P = 0.57); I2 =0.0%
Test for overall effect: Z = 6.51 (P < 0.00001)
Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
-10
-5
Favours cl-indicated
0
5
10
Favours 3-day
APPENDICES
Appendix 1. CENTRAL search strategy
#1 MeSH descriptor: [Infusions, Intravenous] explode all trees 8402
#2 MeSH descriptor: [Catheters, Indwelling] explode all trees 877
#3 MeSH descriptor: [Catheterization, Peripheral] explode all trees 626
#4 catheter* 12181
#5 cannul* 1612
#6 intravenous near/2 (therapy or treatment) 2950
#7 #1 or #2 or #3 or #4 or #5 or #6 23117
#8 MeSH descriptor: [Equipment Contamination] explode all trees and with qualifiers: [Prevention & control - PC] 241
#9 MeSH descriptor: [Catheter-Related Infections] explode all trees and with qualifiers: [Prevention & control - PC] 66
#10 MeSH descriptor: [Phlebitis] explode all trees and with qualifiers: [Prevention & control - PC] 734
#11 *phlebitis 1910
#12 infiltrat* 3359
#13 occlusion 5295
#14 infect* 58672
#15 MeSH descriptor: [Equipment Failure] explode all trees 1354
#16 #8 or #9 or #10 or #11 or #12 or #13 or #14 or #15 68931
#17 #7 and #16 5063
#18 MeSH descriptor: [Device Removal] explode all trees 224
#19 change or routine or resit* or re-sit* replace* or remov* 139184
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
38
#20 #18 or #19 139184
#21 #17 and #20 in Trials 939
WHAT’S NEW
Last assessed as up-to-date: 11 December 2012.
Date
Event
Description
15 December 2012
New citation required but conclusions have not Searches re-run. One new included study and two new
changed
excluded studies added. Primary outcome modified.
Conclusions not changed. New author joined author
team
15 December 2012
New search has been performed
Searches re-run. One new included study and two new
excluded studies added. Primary outcome modified.
Conclusions not changed
CONTRIBUTIONS OF AUTHORS
JW conceived the idea for the review. JW and SO wrote the protocol. CR critically reviewed the protocol before final submission.
JW selected trials for inclusion, assessed methodological quality of trials and extracted data. JW entered the data, developed the analysis
plan for the update and drafted the review update.
SO arbitrated on the selection of trials, assisted with data extraction, assessed methodological quality and assisted in drafting the final
review.
CR selected trials for inclusion, assessed methodological quality of trials, extracted data, assisted with interpreting results and drafting
of the final review.
KN assessed methodological quality of trials, extracted data, and commented on the review update.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
CR’s department has received a grant in aid for a research project from a manufacturer of peripheral intravenous catheters (Becton
Dickinson, Australia). The sponsor had no involvement in study design, execution, analysis or publication. The research project was
unrelated to the topic of this review.
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
39
SOURCES OF SUPPORT
Internal sources
• No sources of support supplied
External sources
• Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health Directorates, The Scottish Government, UK.
The PVD Group editorial base is supported by the Chief Scientist Office.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PROTOCOL AND REVIEW
The primary outcome was changed to catheter-related bloodstream infection; all-cause bloodstream infection was added as a secondary
outcome. This was done to more closely differentiate between the two outcomes.
The methodological quality assessment of the included studies has been updated to the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk
of bias (Higgins 2011a).
INDEX TERMS
Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)
Catheter-Related Infections [∗ prevention & control]; Catheterization, Peripheral [adverse effects; economics; ∗ instrumentation];
Catheters, Indwelling [adverse effects]; Device Removal [∗ standards]; Guideline Adherence; Incidence; Phlebitis [epidemiology; etiology]; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
MeSH check words
Humans
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)
Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
40