PubMed · 16462233
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Kelli Rosenthal. 2006. When your patient develops phlebitis.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00152193-200602000-00009
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Venous access is an essential part of caring for the sick neonate; however, problems such as contamination of fluids with bacteria, endotoxins and particulates have been associated with intravenous infusion therapy. Intravenous in-line filters claim to be an effective strategy for the removal of bacteria, endotoxins and particulates associated with intravenous therapy in adults and are increasingly being recommended for use in neonates. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether in-line filters on intravenous lines prevent morbidity and mortality in neonates. SEARCH STRATEGY: Searches were made of the electronic databases MEDLINE (from 1966 to September 2005), EMBASE (from 1980 to September 2005), CINAHL (from 1982 to September 2005) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 3 2005 ). There was no language restriction. Further searching included cross references, abstracts, conferences, symposia proceedings, expert informants and journal handsearching. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials that compared the use of intravenous in-line filters with placebo or nothing in neonates were included in the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The procedures of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (CNRG) were followed throughout. Titles and abstracts identified from the search were checked by the review authors. The full text of all studies of possible relevance were obtained. The review authors independently assessed the trials for their methodological quality and subsequent inclusion in the review. Statistical analysis followed the procedures of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. Dichotomous data is expressed as relative risk and 95% confidence intervals, and risk difference and 95% confidence intervals. MAIN RESULTS: There were three eligible studies, which recruited a total of 262 neonates. For most of the outcomes for this review, only one study of 88 neonates contributed eligible data. This review found no significant effect of in-line filters in any of the reported outcomes of overall mortality, proven and unproven septicaemia, phlebitis, necrotizing enterocolitis, duration of cannula patency, number of catheters inserted and financial costs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are insufficient data to determine whether or not the use of intravenous in-line filters prevent morbidity and mortality in neonates. The wide confidence intervals on outcomes indicate the imprecise estimates of treatment effect due to the small numbers of patients and events.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: There is currently no high grade evidence on which to base decisions about the frequency of intravenous cannula re-sites. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of changing peripheral venous cannulas when clinically indicated. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: A tertiary referral hospital in Brisbane, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and six hospitalised patients from surgical, medical and orthopaedic wards. INTERVENTIONS: Peripheral intravenous cannulas were re-sited only when complications occurred (intervention group) or every 3 days (control group). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was any unplanned cannula removal, the secondary outcome was cost. RESULTS: Forty six patients had unplanned removals in the intervention group compared with 41 in the control group [relative risk 1.12, 95% confidence interval 0.81-1.55 (p=0.286)], a non-significant difference. Total duration of peripheral cannulation was similar in both groups (mean 123.3h in the intervention group and 125.9h in the control group: P=0.82) but significantly more re-sites occurred in the control group (167 in intervention group, 202 in the control group: p=0.022). Cost of cannula replacements in the intervention group was AUD$3,183.62 and in the control group AUD$3,837.56 (p=0.006). CONCLUSION: Re-siting peripheral venous cannulas when clinically indicated compared with changing them routinely every 3 days does not lead to more complications and reduces costs.