Observational Study of Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Outcomes in Adult Hospitalized Patients: A Multivariable Analysis of Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Failure

Peripheral intravenous catheter (PIV) insertion is the fastest, simplest, and most cost-effective method to gain vascular access, and it is used for short-term intravenous (IV) fluids, medications, blood products, and contrast media.¹ It is the most common invasive device in hospitalized patients,² with up to 70% of hospital patients receiving a PIV.³ Unacceptable PIV failure rates have been reported as high as 69%.^4-7 Failure is most frequently due to phlebitis (vein wall irritation/inflammation), occlusion (blockage), infiltration or extravasation (IV fluids/vesicant therapy entering surrounding tissue), partial dislodgement or accidental removal, leakage, and infection.^4,6,8 These failures have important implications for patients, who endure the discomfort of PIV complications and catheter replacements, and healthcare staff and budgets.

To reduce the incidence of catheter failure and avoid preventable PIV replacements, a clear understanding of why catheters fail is required. Previous research has identified that catheter gauge,^9-11 insertion site,^12-14 and inserter skill^10,15 have an impact on PIV failure. Limitations of existing research are small study sizes,^16-18 retrospective design,¹⁹ or secondary analysis of an existing data set; all potentially introduce sampling bias.^10,20

To overcome these potential biases, we developed a data collection instrument based on the catheter-associated risk factors described in the literature,^9-11,13 and other potential insertion and maintenance risks for PIV failure (eg, multiple insertion attempts, medications administered), with data collected prospectively. The study aim was to improve patient outcomes by identifying PIV insertion and maintenance risk factors amenable to modification through education or alternative clinical interventions, such as catheter gauge selection or insertion site.

Study Design and Participants

We conducted this prospective cohort study in a large tertiary hospital in Queensland, Australia. Ethics committee approval was obtained from the hospital (HREC/14/QRBW/76) and Griffith University (NRS/26/14/HREC). The study was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12615000738527). Patients in medical and surgical wards were screened Monday, Wednesday, and Friday between October 2014 and December 2015. Patients over 18 years with a PIV (BD Insyte^TM Autoguard^TM BC; Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ) inserted within 24 hours, and who were able to provide written informed consent, were eligible and recruited sequentially. Patients classified as palliative by the treating clinical team were excluded.

Sample Size Calculation

The “10 events per variable” rule was used to determine the sample size required to study 50 potential risk factors.^21,22 This determined that 1000 patients, with an average of 1.5 PIVs each and an expected PIV failure of 30% (500 events), were required.

Data Collection

At recruitment, baseline patient information was collected by a research nurse (ReNs) (demographics, admitting diagnosis, comorbidities, skin type,²³ and vein condition) and entered into an electronic data platform supported by Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap).²⁴ Baseline data also included catheter variables (eg, gauge, insertion site, catheterized vein) and insertion details (eg, department of insertion, inserting clinician, number of insertion attempts). We included every PIV the participant had during their admission until hospital discharge or insertion of a central venous access device. PIV sites were reviewed Monday, Wednesday, and Friday by ReNs for site complications (eg, redness, pain, swelling, palpable cord). Potential risk factors for failure were also recorded (eg, infusates and additives, antibiotic type and dosage, flushing regimen, number of times the PIV was accessed each day for administration of IV medications or fluids, dressing type and condition, securement method for the catheter and tubing, presence of extension tubing or 3-way taps, patient mobility status, and delirium). A project manager trained and supervised ReNs for protocol compliance and audited study data quality. We considered PIV failure to have occurred if the catheter had complications at removal identified by the ReNs assessment, from medical charts, or by speaking to the patient and beside nurse. We grouped the failures in 1 of 3 types: (1) occlusion or infiltration, defined as blockage, IV fluids moving into surrounding tissue, induration, or swelling greater than 1 cm from the insertion site at or within 24 hours of removal; (2) phlebitis, defined as per clinicians’ definitions or one or more of the following signs and symptoms: pain or tenderness scored at 2 or more on a 1 to 10 increasing severity pain scale, or redness or a palpable cord (either extending greater than 1 cm from the insertion site) at or within 24 hours of PIV removal; and (3) dislodgement (partial or complete). If multiple complications were present, all were recorded.