http://www.ivcannula.com/cannula-with-wings-with-port.html
Foundation:
Peripheral
Intravenous Catheter substitution is an agonizing, tedious, and expensive
method. The ebb and flow rules of Center for Disease Control and Prevention
prescribes the normal substitution of the Peripheral Intravenous Catheter each
72 to 96 hours among the grown-up inpatients to diminish the dimension of
phlebitis and catheter-related circulation system contamination. The ongoing
investigations scrutinized the viability of the conventional routine with
regards to routine substitution in averting the event of phlebitis and
decreasing in catheter-related circulation system disease.
Objective:
The fundamental motivation behind this survey is to concocted proof to demonstrate
the adequacy of supplanting the Peripheral Intravenous Catheter when there is a
clinical sign compared with directions from the Center for Disease Control and
Prevention, which prescribes changing the Peripheral Intravenous Catheter each
72 to 96 hours.
Methods: PICO
(population, intervention, comparison and outcomes) approach was used to
facilitate the research. The eBook collection at Saint Louis
University(EBSCOhost) and the Cochran databases were searched as primary
sources of literature to answer the evidence review question ‘Is replacing the
Peripheral Intravenous Catheter access when there is clinical indication more
effective than replacing it every 72 to 96 hours in term of occurrence rate of
phlebitis, infection, and cost-reduction’.
Results: The
resources accounted a Meta-analysis study that included seven Randomized
Controls Trials with a total number of 4895 patients; a systematic review that
summarized the result of previously conducted two meta-analysis and four
randomized control studies; and one set of clinical guidelines. The review
yielded evidence that indicated no clinical significance from changing the
Peripheral Intravenous Catheter every 72 to 96 hours. On the other hand,
results show no increase in the risk of increasing phlebitis and infection
rates in clinically indicated changing of Peripheral
Intravenous Catheter compared with routine replacement.
Conclusion: Clinical indication and routine
replacement have no difference in terms of clinical significance. However, the
safety and effectiveness of replacing the Peripheral
Intravenous Catheter based on clinical indication is more favorable than
routine replacement in the reduction of the experienced pain among the
patients, workload of staff nurses, and cost related to Peripheral Intravenous
Catheter replacement.
