Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T01:37:46.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The complications of intravenous cannulae incorporating a valved injection side port

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

J. S. Cheesbrough ,
R. G. Finch  and
J. T. Macfarlane
J. S. Cheesbrough
Affiliation:
Departments of Microbial Diseases and Thoracic Medicine, the City Hospital, Nottingham NG5 1PB
R. G. Finch
Affiliation:
Departments of Microbial Diseases and Thoracic Medicine, the City Hospital, Nottingham NG5 1PB
J. T. Macfarlane
Affiliation:
Departments of Microbial Diseases and Thoracic Medicine
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In a series of 519 intravenous cannulae with valved injection side-ports the incidence of cannula-related local inflammation was 25·2% and bacteraemia 0·2%. Severe local inflammation was associated with a longer mean duration of cannulation, 59·4 v. 81·4 h (P = <0·05). There was no significant association between the presence of local inflammation and microbial colonization of either the intravascular segment of the cannula, the adjacent skin, or the side-port. The data suggest that colonization of the cannulae was usually secondary to prior skin colonization. Side-port colonization did not, predispose to cannula colonization. Organisms colonizing the side-port were biologically different and were possibly derived from the skin of medical attendants. In the final 157 patients, randomized to receive either isopropyl alcohol or 0·5% chlorhexidine in 70% spirit skin preparation, there was no difference in the incidence of either local inflammation or microbial colonization.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 93 , Issue 3 , December 1984 , pp. 497 - 504
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

References

Banks, D. C, Yates, D. B., Cawdrey, H. M., Harries, M. G. & Kinder, P. H. (1970). Infection from intravenous catheters. Lancet i, 443–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collin, J., Collin, C., Constable, F. L. & Johnston, I. D. A. (1975). Infusion thrombophlebitis and infection with various cannulas. Lancet II, 150–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowan, M. E. (1982). Bacterial contamination of sideports of ‘Venflon’ intravenous cannulae. Journal of Hospital Infection 3, 73–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dinley, R. J. (1976). Venous reactions related to in-dwelling plastic cannulae: a prospective clinical trial. Current Medical Research and Opinion 3, 607–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grabe, N. & Jakobson, C.-J. B. (1983). Bacterial contamination of ‘Venflon’ intravenous cannulae with valved injection sideport. Journal of Hospital Infection 4, 291–295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Locci, R., Peters, G. & Pulverer, G. (1981). Microbial colonisation of prosthetic devices. III. Adhesion of staphylococci to lumina of intravenous catheters perfused with bacterial suspensions. Zentralblatt für Bakteriologie, Mikrobiologie und Hygiene. 1. Abt. Originale B 173, 300–307.Google ScholarPubMed
Macfarlane, J. T., Ward, M. J., Banks, D. C, Pilkinoton, R. & Finch, R. G. (1980). Risks from cannulae used to maintain intravenous access. British Medical Journal 281, 1395–1396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macfarlane, J. T., Ward, M. J., Banks, D. C, Pilkinoton, R. & Finch, R. G. (1981). Reducing the risks from intravenous cannulae. British Medical Journal 282, 1838.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maki, D. G. (1980). Sepsis associated with infusion therapy. In Controversies in Surgical Sepsis (ed. Karran, S.), pp. 207–253. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Maki, D. G. & Band, J. T. (1981). A comparative study of polyantibiotic and iodophor ointments in the prevention of vascular catheter-related infection. American Journal of Medicine 70, 739–744.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maki, D. G., Weise, C. E. & Sarafin, H. W. (1977). A semiquantitative method for identifying intravenous-catheter-related infection. New England Journal of Medicine 296, 1305–1309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noble, C. J., Morqan-Capner, P., Hammer, M., Sivyer, C., Waostaff, P. & Pattison, J. R. (1980). A trial of povidone iodine dry powder spray for the prevention of infusion thrombophlebitis. Journal of Hospital Infection 1, 47–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oberhammer, E. P. (1980). Contamination of injection ports on intravenous cannulae. Lancet ii, 1027–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, J. L., Fisher, C. & Meiitar, S. (1970). Potential hazards of Viggo intravenous cannulae. Lancet ii, 1239.Google Scholar
Peters, J. L., Fisher, C. & Meiitar, S. (1980). Intravenous stopcocks and injection ports. Lancet ii, 701–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, J. L., Fisher, C. & Mehtar, S. (1981 a). Risks from cannulae used to maintain intravenous access. British Medical Journal 282, 223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, J. L., Fisher, C., Ridoway, G. L., Armstrong, R. F. & Mehtar, S. (1981 b). Risks from cannulae used to maintain intravenous access. British Medical Journal 282, 1549–1550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, J. L., Mehtar, S. & Fisher, C. (1980). Intravenous cannula injection ports and stopcocks. Lancet ii, 1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J. A., Selick, A. & Edelist, G. (1973). A clinical and microbiological study of venous catheterization. Canadian Medical Association Journal 109, 115–119.Google ScholarPubMed
Tully, J., Friedland, G., Baldini, L. & Goldman, D. (1981). Complications of intravenous therapy with steel needles and teflon catheters. A comparative study. American Journal of Medicine 70, 702–706.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zinganell, K., Böhme, K. & Schmitt, M. (1983). Rate of contamination of intravenous cannulae with side-port. Anaesthetist 32, 180–184.Google Scholar