IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0226251.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Randomized clinical trial analyzing maintenance of peripheral venous catheters in an internal medicine unit: Heparin vs. saline

Author

Listed:
  • María Jesús Pérez-Granda
  • Emilio Bouza
  • Blanca Pinilla
  • Raquel Cruces
  • Ariana González
  • Jesús Millán
  • María Guembe

Abstract

Background: Peripheral venous catheters (PVCs) require adequate maintenance based on heparin or saline locks in order to prevent complications. Heparin has proven effective in central venous catheters, although its use in PVCs remains controversial. Our hypothesis was that saline locks are as effective as heparin locks in preventing problems with PVCs. The objective of the present study was to compare phlebitis and catheter tip colonization rates between PVCs locked with saline and those locked with heparin in patients admitted to an internal medicine department (IMD). Methods: We performed a 19-month prospective, controlled, open-label, randomized clinical study of patients with at least 1 PVC admitted to the IMD of our hospital. The patients were randomized to receive saline solution (PosiFlush®, group A) or heparin (Fibrilin®, group B) for daily maintenance of the PVC. Clinical and microbiological data were monitored to investigate the frequency of phlebitis, catheter tip colonization, and catheter-related bloodstream infection (C-RBSI), as well as crude mortality, days of hospital stay, and days of antimicrobial treatment. Results: We assessed 339 PVCs (241 patients), of which 192 (56.6%) were locked with saline (group A) and 147 (43.4%) with heparin (group B). The main demographic characteristics of the patients were distributed equally between the 2 study groups. The median (IQR) catheter days was 5 (3–8) for both groups (p = 0.64). The frequency of phlebitis was 17.7% for group A and 13.3% for group B (p = 0.30). The frequency of colonization of PVC tips was 14.6% and 12.2% in groups A and B, respectively (p = 0.63). Only 2 episodes of C-RBSI were detected (1 patient in group A). Saline lock was not an independent factor for phlebitis or catheter colonization. Conclusions: Our study revealed no statistically significant differences in the frequency of phlebitis and catheter tip colonization between PVCs locked with saline and PVCs locked with heparin. We suggest that PVC can be maintained with saline solution, as it is safer and cheaper than heparin.

Suggested Citation

  • María Jesús Pérez-Granda & Emilio Bouza & Blanca Pinilla & Raquel Cruces & Ariana González & Jesús Millán & María Guembe, 2020. "Randomized clinical trial analyzing maintenance of peripheral venous catheters in an internal medicine unit: Heparin vs. saline," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0226251
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226251
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0226251
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0226251&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0226251?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Godelieve Alice Goossens, 2015. "Flushing and Locking of Venous Catheters: Available Evidence and Evidence Deficit," Nursing Research and Practice, Hindawi, vol. 2015, pages 1-12, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0226251. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.