Journal of Infusion Nursing最新文献

Health care providers use several types of syringes in their daily routine to provide or safely deliver therapeutic agents to patients. Pump infusion with a syringe (PIS) are used for the rapid delivery of large amounts of fluid or blood to patients in critical conditions, such as hypovolemic shock. Patients often experience bacterial infections, such as catheter-related bloodstream infections, specifically when they are in critical condition in the intensive care unit (ICU) after surgery or undergoing resuscitation in an emergency department. A previous study has shown that PIS may cause intraluminal contamination. This study compared PIS-induced contamination among different types of available syringes, including disposable plastic syringes produced by several companies, glass syringes, and syringes with plastic covers. The authors found that plastic syringes caused approximately equivalent PIS-induced contamination and that glass syringes caused substantially more contamination than plastic syringes. However, syringes equipped with a plastic cover exhibited no contamination. Furthermore, disinfection with ethanol completely prevented PIS-induced contamination. This study supports the evidence that PIS may cause bacterial contamination and that a thorough aseptic technique is needed, especially when using glass syringes. These findings highlight the need to develop alternative devices for rapid infusion.

A quasi-experimental study comparing the mixing and discard methods of laboratory specimen techniques in an adult acute care setting was conducted over a 30-month period. Primary end points were delta hemoglobin (Hgb) and transfusion rates. Secondary end points were redraws related to hemolysis and erroneous results, noting central venous access device (CVAD) type. Primary objectives included the comparison of hospital-acquired anemia and transfusion rates utilizing Hgb and venous sampling methods as part of a patient blood management (PBM) program. Secondary objectives tracked the type of CVAD used to acquire venous specimens and the impact on hemolysis rates or erroneous results. Considerations include exploring the benefits of utilizing the mixing method related to cost savings. In summary, the mixing versus discard method eliminates wasting blood to reduce hospital-acquired anemia as part of a PBM program. CVAD type did not influence hemolysis rates or impact erroneous results. The mixing method is easy to implement in any health care setting. Cost savings are feasible by elimination of external venous or arterial blood management protection devices. Removal of add-on devices supports standards by decreasing access points to reduce infection risk. Results, although inconclusive to superiority, demonstrated noninferiority and encouraged consideration of the mixing method for laboratory specimen collection.

Critical care nurses are faced with increasing task loads due to increasing patient complexity. In addition to this complexity, most critical care patients have a maze of infusion and monitoring lines that must be navigated when administering medications. Task load is escalated when a nurse must identify an injection port and administer a medication rapidly. This study tested a commercially available light-linking infusion line identification device. Researchers compared standard labeling practices to the light-linking technology on time to injection, error rate, usability, and task load. Forty-seven intensive care nurses completed 188 critical care simulations using a randomized cross-over design. Simulations were carried out in both daylight and low-light conditions. The light-linking technology reduced overall time to injection compared to standard labeling practices and demonstrated a significant decrease in time to injection in low-light settings, greater perceived usability, and lower perceived task load. Injection error rate could not be adequately assessed, but 6 of 8 errors were committed in low-light conditions.

Midline catheters, used for short- and intermediate-term venous access, are recommended to be placed with the tip in an upper arm vein rather than more proximally, in the axillary vein. Despite guidelines recommending against proximal location of the midline catheter tip, the impact of midline catheter tip location on midline catheter-associated thrombosis (MCAT) risk is unclear. Using a retrospective cohort of hospitalized patients who not only had a midline catheter but also had a chest x-ray and venous duplex performed, the authors evaluated whether axillary vein tip location increased the risk of MCAT. Of the 41 midline catheters with tips located in an arm vein, 17 (41.5%) resulted in a thrombus versus 7 (38.9%) of the 18 midline catheters with tips located in the axillary vein. When compared to midline catheter tips located in an arm vein, midline catheter tips located in the axillary vein were not significantly more likely to result in MCAT in unadjusted analysis (odds ratio [OR] = 0.90 [95% CI, 0.29-2.79], P = .85) or adjusted analysis (OR = 0.62 [95% CI, 0.18-2.12], P = .45). These findings support emerging evidence that there does not appear to be an increased risk of MCAT in midlines with an axillary vein tip location. The practice of avoiding the axillary vein for midline catheter tip placement should be reconsidered.

Studies have not demonstrated the effectiveness of the different types of dressings in reducing the rate of complications. The purpose of this study was to determine which type of dressing is most beneficial in reducing the rate of complications. A total of 281 patients requiring a peripheral intravenous catheter were randomized to receive partially reinforced dressings or fully reinforced dressings (dressings with integral catheter securement). Patients were followed throughout their entire catheter course, and complications included infection, occlusion, phlebitis, accidental dislodgement, extravasation, and medical adhesive-related skin injury. Catheter outcome data were compared to determine whether statistically significant differences existed between the 2 groups. The groups had equivalent demographic characteristics and catheter indications. The average securement time with partially reinforced dressings was 2.72 days, and that for fully reinforced dressings was 2.64 days. However, catheters secured with fully reinforced dressings were associated with fewer total complications, such as infectious phlebitis (P = .043) and accidental dislodgement (P = .03). The fully reinforced securement device significantly reduced the rate of complications related to accidental dislodgement of the device and cases of infectious phlebitis. The use of fully reinforced dressings could reduce catheter-associated complications and improve the quality of patient care.

Home intravenous antibiotic treatment (HIAT) consists of the administration of intravenous antibiotic therapy in the home of the patient. Short peripheral intravenous catheters have long been the first option for antimicrobial therapies. However, these devices are known for their short durability. At present, the midline catheter is one of the median duration devices most commonly used and recommended within the context of HIAT. The objective of this study was to evaluate the occurrence of complications related to midline catheters implanted by a vascular access team in patients undergoing HIAT within the context of home hospitalization. This was a prospective observational study, which consecutively included 77 patients. A total of 92 midline catheters were analyzed. The complications observed were device obstruction (8.7%), infiltration (3.3%), dislodgement (2.2%), and thrombosis (1.1%). Bivariate analysis showed that the pH of the drug and ertapenem administration were associated with catheter obstruction. The authors found a low prevalence of midline catheter-associated complications in patients undergoing HIAT. The use of antireflux needleless connectors should be considered to reduce obstructions. In addition, algorithms that include the variable of type of daily life activity should be developed for deciding the most appropriate catheter for home hospitalized patients receiving HIAT.

Midline catheters have recently gained popularity in clinical use, with a common reason being the reduction of central venous catheter use and central line-associated bloodstream infections. At the same time, the number of nononcology vesicant medications has increased, and midline catheters are frequently being used for infusions of vesicant medications. The Infusion Nurses Society (INS) Vesicant Task Force identified midline catheter use as a possible risk factor for extravasation and concluded that a thorough literature review was necessary. This review highlights the variations in catheter terminology and tip locations, the frequency of infiltration and extravasation in published studies, and case reports of infiltration and extravasation from midline catheters. It also examines the many clinical issues requiring evidence-based decision-making for the most appropriate type of vascular access devices. After more than 30 years of clinical practice with midline catheters and what appears to be a significant number of studies, evidence is still insufficient to answer questions about infusion of vesicant and irritant medications through midline catheters. Given the absence of consensus on tip location, inadequate evidence of clinical outcomes, and importance of patient safety, the continuous infusion of vesicants, all parenteral nutrition formulas, and infusates with extremes in pH and osmolarity should be avoided through midline catheters.