US Centers for Disease Control guidelines recommend replacement of peripheral intravenous
catheters (PIVC) no more frequently than every 72 to 96 hours. Routine replacement
is thought to reduce the risk of phlebitis and bloodstream infection. Catheter insertion
is an unpleasant experience for patients and replacement may be unnecessary if the
catheter remains functional and there are no signs of inflammation or infection. Costs
associated with routine replacement may be considerable. This is the third update
of a review first published in 2010. To assess the effects of removing peripheral
intravenous catheters when clinically indicated compared with removing and re‐siting
the catheter routinely. The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the
Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL and World
Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov
trials registers to 18 April 2018. We also undertook reference checking, and contacted
researchers and manufacturers to identify additional studies. We included randomised
controlled trials that compared routine removal of PIVC with removal only when clinically
indicated, in hospitalised or community‐dwelling patients receiving continuous or
intermittent infusions. Three review authors independently reviewed trials for inclusion,
extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to
assess the overall evidence certainty. This update contains two new trials, taking
the total to nine included studies with 7412 participants. Eight trials were conducted
in acute hospitals and one in a community setting. We rated the overall certainty
of evidence as moderate for most outcomes, due to serious risk of bias for unblinded
outcome assessment or imprecision, or both. Because outcome assessment was unblinded
in all of the trials, none met our criteria for high methodological quality. Primary
outcomes Seven trials (7323 participants), assessed catheter‐related bloodstream infection
(CRBSI). There is no clear difference in the incidence of CRBSI between the clinically
indicated (1/3590) and routine change (2/3733) groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence
interval (CI) 0.08 to 4.68), low‐certainty evidence (downgraded twice for serious
imprecision). All trials reported incidence of thrombophlebitis and we combined the
results from seven of these in the analysis (7323 participants). We excluded two studies
in the meta‐analysis because they contributed to high heterogeneity. There is no clear
difference in the incidence of thrombophlebitis whether catheters were changed according
to clinical indication or routinely (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.25; clinically indicated
317/3590; 3‐day change 307/3733, moderate‐certainty evidence, downgraded once for
serious risk of bias). The result was unaffected by whether the infusion was continuous
or intermittent. Six trials provided thrombophlebitis rates by number of device days
(32,709 device days). There is no clear difference between groups (RR 0.90, 95% CI
0.76 to 1.08; clinically indicated 248/17,251; 3‐day change 236/15,458; moderate‐certainty
evidence, downgraded once for serious risk of bias). One trial (3283 participants),
assessed all‐cause blood stream infection (BSI). We found no clear difference in the
all‐cause BSI rate between the two groups (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.53; clinically
indicated: 4/1593 (0.02%); routine change 9/1690 (0.05%); moderate‐certainty evidence,
downgraded one level for serious imprecision). Three trials (4244 participants), investigated
costs; clinically indicated removal probably reduces device‐related costs by approximately
AUD 7.00 compared with routine removal (MD −6.96, 95% CI −9.05 to −4.86; moderate‐certainty
evidence, downgraded once for serious risk of bias). Secondary outcomes Six trials
assessed infiltration (7123 participants). Routine replacement probably reduces infiltration
of fluid into surrounding tissues compared with a clinically indicated change (RR
1.16 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.26; routine replacement 747/3638 (20.5%); clinically indicated
834/3485 (23.9%); moderate‐certainty evidence, downgraded once for serious risk of
bias). Meta‐analysis of seven trials (7323 participants), found that rates of catheter
failure due to blockage were probably lower in the routine‐replacement group compared
to the clinically indicated group (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.29; routine‐replacement
519/3733 (13.9%); clinically indicated 560/3590 (15.6%); moderate‐certainty evidence,
downgraded once for serious risk of bias). Four studies (4606 participants), reported
local infection rates. It is uncertain if there are differences between groups (RR
4.96, 95% CI 0.24 to 102.98; clinically indicated 2/2260 (0.09%); routine replacement
0/2346 (0.0%); very low‐certainty evidence, downgraded one level for serious risk
of bias and two levels for very serious imprecision). One trial (3283 participants),
found no clear difference in the incidence of mortality when clinically indicated
removal was compared with routine removal (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.23; low‐certainty
evidence, downgraded two levels for very serious imprecision). One small trial (198
participants) reported no clear difference in device‐related pain between clinically
indicated and routine removal groups (MD −0.60, 95% CI −1.44 to 0.24; low‐certainty
evidence, downgraded one level for serious risk of bias and one level for serious
imprecision). The pre‐planned outcomes 'number of catheter re‐sites per patient',
and 'satisfaction' were not reported by any studies included in this review. There
is moderate‐certainty evidence of no clear difference in rates of CRBSI, thrombophlebitis,
all‐cause BSI, mortality and pain between clinically indicated or routine replacement
of PIVC. We are uncertain if local infection is reduced or increased when catheters
are changed when clinically indicated. There is moderate‐certainty evidence that infiltration
and catheter blockage is probably lower when PIVC are changed routinely; and moderate‐certainty
evidence that clinically indicated removal probably reduces device‐related costs.
The addition of two new trials for this update found no further evidence to support
changing catheters every 72 to 96 hours. Healthcare organisations may consider changing
to a policy whereby catheters are changed only if there is a clinical indication to
do so, for example, if there were signs of infection, blockage or infiltration. This
would provide significant cost savings, spare patients the unnecessary pain of routine
re‐sites in the absence of clinical indications and would reduce time spent by busy
clinicians on this intervention. To minimise PIVC‐related complications, staff should
inspect the insertion site at each shift change and remove the catheter if signs of
inflammation, infiltration, occlusion, infection or blockage are present, or if the
catheter is no longer needed for therapy. Replacing a peripheral venous catheter when
clinically indicated versus routine replacement Review question We reviewed the evidence
about the effects of changing a catheter routinely (every three to four days) or changing
the catheter only if there were signs or symptoms of a problem with the catheter remaining
in place. Background Most hospital patients receive fluids or medications via a peripheral
intravenous catheter at some time during their hospital stay. An intravenous catheter
(also called an IV drip, an IV line or intravenous cannula) is a short, hollow tube
placed in the vein to allow administration of medications, fluids or nutrients directly
into the bloodstream. These catheters are often replaced every three to four days
to try to prevent irritation of the vein or infection of the blood. However, replacing
the catheter may cause discomfort to patients and is quite costly. This is the third
update of a review first published in 2010. Study characteristics In April 2018 we
searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared changing catheters
every 72 to 96 hours (routine change) with changing the catheter only if there were
complications or therapy was complete. We measured catheter‐related blood stream infection,
phlebitis and other problems associated with peripheral catheters, such as local infection
and catheter blockage. We included two new studies for this update, bringing the total
to nine studies with 7412 participants. Key results We found no clear difference in
rates of catheter‐related blood stream infection, phlebitis (inflammation of the vein),
blood stream infection from any cause, local infection, mortality or pain. We are
uncertain if local infection is reduced or increased when catheters are changed when
clinically indicated. Infiltration (fluid seeping into the tissue around the catheter)
and catheter blockage (an inability to infuse fluids or medication through the catheter),
are probably reduced when catheters are changed routinely. Cost is reduced when catheters
are replaced when there was a clinical indication to do so. The pre‐planned outcomes
'number of catheter re‐sites per patient', and 'satisfaction' were not reported by
any studies included in the review. Quality of the evidence The overall quality of
the evidence was judged to be moderate for most outcomes, which leaves us uncertain
of our findings. The uncertainty is largely due to outcomes, such as phlebitis, being
assessed by people who were aware of the group allocation, which may or may not affect
their decision about whether a problem is present or absent.