Up to 50% peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVs) are removed prematurely because of failures. Catheter failure (CF) leads to replacement and is a great concern for patients and medical staff. It is known that visualization of catheters and vessels with ultrasonography (US) during placement prevents CF. However, US is not a common technique for general nurses. In order to standardize US-assisted PIV placement techniques, an algorithm is needed. This study aimed to develop an algorithm using US-assisted PIV placement to reduce CF rate. Furthermore, to evaluate the effectiveness of the algorithm, CF rates were compared before and after intervention. A pretestposttest study was performed. The intervention was PIV placement by 23 nurses undergoing training sessions for the algorithm. Intention to treat, per protocol analyses were applied. Logistic regression analysis was used for factor analysis. The CF rate in the pre-intervention group 35.2% (19/54) did not significantly differ from post-intervention group 33.6% (48/143) (p = 0.831), yet significantly differ from complete algorithm-use group 8.7% (2/23; p = 0.017). In factor analysis, compliance to the algorithm was significantly correlated with CF (p = 0.032). The compliance rate was low 16.1% (23/143). Algorithm compliance reduced CF by confirming appropriate catheter tip position from the insertion to the securement phase. This algorithm effectively reduced CF, however, the compliance rate was unacceptable. In order to increase the compliance rate, modified algorithm and new visualizing technology is required.

We aimed to reveal detailed descriptive data on peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) failure related to insertion timing during the treatment cycle, in patients with lymphoma, leukemia, and myeloma. Methods:We conducted a prospective descriptive study to investigate the incidence of PIVC failure, defined as PIVC removal prior to completing infusion therapy. This was judged by ward nurses for adult patients requiring PIVC insertion for chemotherapy. A research nurse confirmed the timing and determined the causes of PIVC failure using ultrasonographic imaging. Descriptive data were collected in the hematology and oncology ward of a tertiary hospital in Japan. Results: We recruited 85 patients (with 303 PIVCs), and analyzed 67 patients (with 280 PIVCs). Of these, 118 PIVCs (42%) were inserted during the chemotherapeutic dosing period of the treatment cycle, and 106 (38%), during the rest period. The incidence of cumulative PIVC failure was 43.2% of all analyzed PIVCs (89.97 per 1,000 PIVC days). Of the PIVCs in patients with lymphoma, those inserted during the dosing period were less likely to show PIVC failure (32% vs. 57%, p < .001). Conversely, those inserted after the treatment cycle were more likely to show PIVC failure (22% vs. 7%, p = .002). Conclusion:This study demonstrated that the incidence of PIVC failure in patients with hematological malignancies was unacceptably high. Conceivably, the incidence of PIVC failure varies by the onset time of side effects in the treatment cycle. This should be considered when using PIVCs and selecting optimal vascular access devices for patients with hematological malignancies.