Lifespan and associated factors of peripheral intravenous Cannula among infants admitted in public hospitals of Mekelle City, Tigray, Ethiopia, 2016

Birhane, Eskedar; Kidanu, Kalayou; Kassa, Mekuria; Gerezgiher, Dawit; Tsegay, Lidia; Weldu, Brhanu; Kidane, Genet; Gerensea, Hadgu

doi:10.1186/s12912-017-0227-1

Cited by 26 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Optimising PIVC insertion and lowering the PIVCs complication rate is crucial for optimising care in children. Only a few studies have addressed this issue, even though PIVC use is a very common practice 8‐13 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Predicting factors for complications in peripheral intravenous catheters in the pediatric population

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To characterise the association between peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) gauge (G), the patient's age, insertion site and complication incidence. Methods This prospective study was performed in Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel, between June 2018 and March 2019. Children with PIVC admitted to the paediatric departments were included. PIVCs were evaluated daily. Results A total of 113 children with 132 PIVCs were included in the study. The most common site of insertion was the antecubital fossa (43.9%). PIVCs were most commonly used for intravenous (IV) antibiotics (46.6%). Complications were observed for 40.9% PIVCs. Dislodgement was the most common complication. The complication rate was higher for the lower limbs (60%) and external jugular veins (100%) p = 0.002. In infants younger than 12 months, the complication rate was higher for 22 G PIVCs or larger (58.7% versus 27.5%; p = 0.05). In contrast, for the 1‐6 years age group, PIVCs smaller than 24 G had a higher complication rate (p = 0.004). Patients with comorbidities had a higher complication rate (p = 0.003). Conclusion Risk factors for complications are comorbidities and sites of insertion other than the upper limbs. In infants, 24 G PIVC or smaller should be inserted, whereas 22 G PIVC or larger are superior for 1‐ to 6‐year‐old children.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies conducted on paediatric populations found that prolonged use of PIVCs, younger age and the administration of drugs through the catheter increased the risk of phlebitis 8 . PIVC insertion site, patient age and the experience of the staff member inserting the line affected PIVC lifespan 9,10 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting factors for complications in peripheral intravenous catheters in the pediatric population

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…PIVCs had higher success rates when inserted in the cephalic vein in the proximal forearm under USG techniques or the antecubital fossa 109,123 and a longer life span when inserted into the arm compared to scalp, hand, or leg insertion sites. 33 CVAD insertion via the axillary vein using USG techniques resulted in fewer insertion attempts and significantly shorter time to guidewire insertion and time to cannulation. 78 Similarly, CVAD insertion in the subclavian vein was associated with shorter median puncture time, less insertion attempts, and significantly less guidewire misplacement compared to insertion via the infraclavicular approach.…”

Section: Recommendations For Insertion Insertion Locationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selection and Insertion of Vascular Access Devices in Pediatrics: A Systematic Review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE: To critically review the evidence for the selection and insertion of pediatric vascular access devices (VADs). DATA SOURCES: Data were sourced from the US National Library of Medicine, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, the Cochrane Library databases, Embase, and international clinical trial databases. STUDY SELECTION: Clinical practice guidelines, systematic reviews, cohort designs, randomized control trials (RCTs), quasi RCTs, before-after trials, or case-control studies that reported on complications and/or risk as well as reliability of VADs in patients aged 0 to 18 years were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Articles were independently reviewed to extract and summarize details on the number of patients and catheters, population, age of participants, VAD type, study method, indication, comparators, and the frequency of VAD failure or complications. RESULTS: VAD selection and insertion decision-making in general hospitalized and some specialized patient populations were well evidenced. The use of single-lumen devices and ultrasound-guided techniques was also broadly supported. There was a lack of RCTs, and for neonates, cardiac patients, patients with difficult venous access, midline catheters, catheter-tovein ratio, and near-infrared devices, the lack of evidence necessitated broadening the review scope. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include the lack of formal assessment of the quality of evidence and the lack of RCTs and systematic reviews. Consequently, clinical decision-making in certain pediatric populations is not guided by strong, evidence-based recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first synthesis of available evidence for the selection and insertion of VADs in pediatric patients and is important for determining the appropriateness of VADs in pediatric patients. WHAT'S KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT: Individual studies, systematic reviews, and focused clinical practice guidelines that evaluate vascular access devices (VADs) in various pediatric populations are available. However, to date, no systematic review examining the appropriateness, and inappropriateness, of VADs across common pediatric clinical scenarios exists. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: There is strong evidence to support and facilitate appropriate clinical decision-making in some pediatric indications. However, certain populations, device types and characteristics, and insertion procedures are poorly evidenced, necessitating the application of clinical judgment for VAD decision-making.

show abstract

“…This study revealed that the proportion of short life span of peripheral intravenous catheter was 52.8% (94) and of this proportion, 37.6% (67) catheters were removed within 24 hr. [6] Complications of central venous catheter and peripheral intravenous catheter are totally different so direct comparison is not possible so, in our study we had first divided their particular complications in three group like major , intermediate , and minor complication in which each category contains different type of complication pertinent to type of intravenous catheter used. In study of M. Jha, and Sunil Kumar.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

To Compare Central Venous Catheter and Peripheral Intravenous Catheter in Patients of Laparotomy: An Observational Comparative Study

Prajapati

Somani

Shah

2020

IJMBS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The laparotomy is one of the major surgery require ample amount of intravenous fluids administration, blood transfusion ,and sometime parental nutrition, repeated blood sampling to monitor patients condition. These all things fulfilled by either use of peripheral intravenous catheter or central venous catheter. Both of these intravenous catheters are compared on basis of their life span, hospital stay of the patient, and their complications to evaluate the efficacy of both in patients undergoing laparotomy. Methods: An observational comparative study was conducted among 50 patients of laparotomy in the department of general surgery, sir t hospital Bhavnagar. All patients were randomly assigned to two groups A and B. Patients of group A were subjected to central venous catheter and patients of group b were subjected to peripheral intravenous catheter. Results: The mean of hospital stay of patients in group a was 20.4 (± 4.9) and group b was 15.4 (± 6.12) . The mean life span of catheter was 18.8 ± 4.25 days in group A and 6.04 ± 1.947 days in group B. Rate of major complication in group A was 12% as compare to group B having 40% complication rate. Rate of intermediate complication in group A was 20% as compare to group B having 72% complication rate. . Rate of minor complication in group A was 8% as compare to group B having 56% complication rate. Rate of overall complication in group A was 28% as compare to group B having 72% complication rate. Conclusion: Life span of central venous catheter is greater as compare to the peripheral intravenous catheter and rate of complications is more in patients with peripheral intravenous catheter. Keywords: Central Venous Catheter, Peripheral Intravenous Catheter, Laparotomy

show abstract

Lifespan and associated factors of peripheral intravenous Cannula among infants admitted in public hospitals of Mekelle City, Tigray, Ethiopia, 2016

Cited by 26 publications

References 17 publications

Predicting factors for complications in peripheral intravenous catheters in the pediatric population

Predicting factors for complications in peripheral intravenous catheters in the pediatric population

Selection and Insertion of Vascular Access Devices in Pediatrics: A Systematic Review

To Compare Central Venous Catheter and Peripheral Intravenous Catheter in Patients of Laparotomy: An Observational Comparative Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About