Devices and dressings to secure peripheral venous catheters: A Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis.
Peripheral venous catheterisation is the most frequent invasive procedure performed in hospitalised patients; yet over 30% of peripheral venous catheters fail before treatment ends.
To assess the effects of peripheral venous catheter dressings and securement devices on the incidence of peripheral venous catheter failure.
We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE; EMBASE and CINAHL for any randomised controlled trials comparing different dressings or securement devices used to stabilise peripheral venous catheters. The reference lists of included studies were also searched for any previously unidentified studies.
We included six randomised controlled trials (1539 participants) that compared various dressings and securement devices (transparent dressings versus gauze; bordered transparent dressings versus a securement device; bordered transparent dressings versus tape; and transparent dressing versus sticking plaster). Trial sizes ranged from 50 to 703 participants. The quality of evidence ranged from low to very low. Catheter dislodgements or accidental removals were lower with transparent dressings compared with gauze (two studies, 278 participants, risk ratio (RR) 0.40; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17-0.92, P=0.03%). However, the relative effects of transparent dressings and gauze on phlebitis (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.47-1.68) and infiltration (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.48-1.33) are unclear. A single study identified less frequent dislodgement or accidental catheter removal with bordered transparent dressings compared to a securement device (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.63) but more phlebitis with bordered dressings (RR 8.11, 95% CI 1.03-64.02). A comparison of a bordered transparent dressing and tape found more peripheral venous catheter failure with the bordered dressing (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.08-3.11) but the relative effect on dislodgement was unclear.
There is no strong evidence to suggest that any one dressing or securement product for preventing peripheral venous catheter failure is more effective than any other product. All of the included trials were small, had high or unclear risk of bias for one or more of the quality elements we assessed, and wide confidence intervals, indicating that further randomised controlled trials are necessary. There is a need for suitably powered, high quality trials to evaluate the newer, high use products and novel - but expensive - securement methods, such as surgical grade glue.
Marsh N
，Webster J
，Mihala G
，Rickard CM
... -
《-》
Dressings and securement devices to prevent complications for peripheral arterial catheters.
Peripheral arterial catheters (ACs) are used in anaesthesia and intensive care settings for blood sampling and monitoring. Despite their importance, ACs often fail, requiring reinsertion. Dressings and securement devices maintain AC function and prevent complications such as infection.
To evaluate the effectiveness of peripheral AC dressing and securement devices to prevent failure and complications in hospitalised people.
We searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL Plus up to 16 May 2023. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to 16 May 2023.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different dressing and securement devices for the stabilisation of ACs in hospitalised people.
Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's RoB 1 tool. We resolved disagreements by discussion, or by consulting a third review author when necessary. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.
We included five RCTs with 1228 participants and 1228 ACs. All included studies had high risk of bias in one or more domains. We present the following four comparisons, with the remaining comparisons reported in the main review. Standard polyurethane (SPU) plus tissue adhesive (TA) compared with SPU: we are very uncertain whether use of SPU plus TA impacts rates of AC failure (risk ratio (RR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.98; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 165 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Neither study (165 participants) reported catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI), thus we are very uncertain whether SPU plus TA impacts on the incidence of CRBSI (very low-certainty evidence). It is very uncertain whether use of SPU plus TA impacts AC dislodgement risk (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.03 to 9.62; I² = 44%; 2 studies, 165 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether use of SPU plus TA impacts AC occlusion rates (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.91; I² = 3%; 2 studies, 165 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether use of SPU plus TA impacts rates of adverse events with few reported events across groups (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.09 to 8.33; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 165 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Bordered polyurethane (BPU) compared to SPU: we are very uncertain whether use of BPU impacts rates of AC failure (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.13; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). BPU may make little or no difference to CRBSI compared to SPU (RR 3.05, 95% CI 0.12 to 74.45; I² = not applicable as 1 study (60 participants) reported 0 events; 2 studies, 572 participants; low-certainty evidence). BPU may make little or no difference to the risk of AC dislodgement compared with SPU (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.22; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 572 participants; low-certainty evidence). BPU may make little or no difference to occlusion risk compared with SPU (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.07; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 572 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is very uncertain whether BPU impacts on the risk of adverse events compared with SPU (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.87; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). SPU plus sutureless securement devices (SSD) compared to SPU: we are very uncertain whether SPU plus SSD impacts risk of AC failure compared with SPU (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.52; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 157 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain if SPU plus SSD impacts CRBSI incidence rate with no events in both groups (2 studies, 157 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is very uncertain whether SPU plus SSD impacts risk of dislodgement (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.57; I² = not applicable as 1 study (96 participants) reported 0 events; 2 studies, 157 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is very uncertain whether SPU plus SSD impacts risk of AC occlusion (RR 1.94, 95% CI 0.50 to 7.48; I² = 38%; 2 studies, 157 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether SPU plus SSD impacts on the risk of adverse events (RR 1.94, 95% CI 0.19 to 20.24; I² = not applicable as 1 study (96 participants) reported 0 events; 2 studies, 157 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Integrated securement dressings compared to SPU: integrated securement dressings may result in little or no difference in risk of AC failure compared with SPU (RR 1.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 4.84; 1 study, 105 participants; low-certainty evidence); may result in little or no difference in CRBSI incidence with no events reported (1 study, 105 participants; low-certainty evidence); may result in little or no difference in the risk of dislodgement (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.04; 1 study, 105 participants; low-certainty evidence), may result in little or no difference in occlusion rates with no events reported (1 study, 105 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may result in little or no difference in the risk of adverse events (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.45; 1 study, 105 participants; low-certainty evidence).
There is currently limited rigorous RCT evidence available about the relative clinical effectiveness of AC dressing and securement products. Limitations of current evidence include small sample size, infrequent events, and heterogeneous outcome measurements. We found no clear difference in the incidence of AC failure, CRBSI, or adverse events across AC dressing or securement products including SPU, BPU, SSD, TA, and integrated securement products. The limitations of current evidence means further rigorous RCTs are needed to reduce uncertainty around the use of dressing and securement devices for ACs.
Schults JA
，Reynolds H
，Rickard CM
，Culwick MD
，Mihala G
，Alexandrou E
，Ullman AJ
... -
《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
