PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF INFECTION RELATED TO PERIPHERAL ARTERIAL CATHETER MANAGEMENT

PREVENCIÓN Y CONTROL DE INFECCIONES RELACIONADAS CON EL MANEJO DEL CATÉTER ARTERIAL PERIFÉRICO

ABSTRACT

Objective:

to describe scientific evidence on good practices for peripheral arterial catheter management.

Method:

this is an integrative review, carried out through a search in the Latin American and Caribbean Literature in Health Sciences, Virtual Health Nursing Library, National Library of Medicine, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, SciVerse Scopus TopCited and Web of Science databases in March 2021. Articles in Portuguese, English and Spanish, without time limits in the search, were included.

Results:

forty-nine articles were found. At insertion, measures involved hand hygiene, skin preparation, no-touch technique, aseptic technique and protective barrier, sterile components and transducers, peripheral arterial catheter insertion, insertion attempts, ultrasound and comfort measure use. During maintenance, issues regarding insertion site, invasive blood pressure circuit, connectors, dressing and stabilization were identified, and, during removal, aspects such as local and systemic complications after peripheral arterial catheter removal.

Conclusion:

the study provides crucial information for the effective management of peripheral arterial catheters, contributing to the reduction of complications and improvement of clinical results. By updating their practices, healthcare professionals can ensure greater safety and well-being for patients, always seeking to provide excellent care.

DESCRIPTORS:
Vascular access devices; Sepsis; Catheterization peripheral; Adult; Nursing

RESUMEN

Objetivo:

describir la evidencia científica sobre buenas prácticas para el manejo de catéteres arteriales periféricos.

Método:

revisión integradora, realizada a través de una búsqueda en las bases de datos Literatura Latinoamericana y del Caribe en Ciencias de la Salud, Biblioteca Virtual en Enfermería en Salud, National Library of Medicine, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, SciVerse Scopus TopCited y Web of Science en marzo de 2021. Se incluyeron artículos en portugués, inglés y español, sin límite de tiempo en la búsqueda.

Resultados:

se encontraron 49 artículos. En la inserción, las medidas incluyeron higiene de manos, preparación de la piel, técnica de no contacto, técnica aséptica y barrera protectora, componentes y transductores estériles, Inserción de catéter arterial periférico, intentos de inserción, uso de ultrasonido y medidas de comodidad. Durante el mantenimiento se identificaron problemas relacionados con el sitio de inserción, circuito de presión arterial invasiva, conectores, vendaje y estabilización y, durante el retiro, aspectos como complicaciones locales y sistémicas, luego del retiro del catéter arterial periférico.

Conclusión:

el estudio proporciona información crucial para el manejo eficaz de los catéteres arteriales periféricos, contribuyendo a la reducción de complicaciones y mejora de los resultados clínicos. Al actualizar sus prácticas, los profesionales de la salud pueden garantizar una mayor seguridad y bienestar a los pacientes, buscando siempre brindar una excelente atención.

DESCRIPTORES:
Dispositivos de acceso vascular; Sepsis; Cateterismo periférico; Adulto; Enfermería

RESUMO

Objetivo:

descrever as evidências científicas sobre as boas práticas para o manejo de cateter arterial periférico.

Método:

revisão integrativa, realizada por meio de busca nas bases de dados Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde, Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde Enfermagem, National Library of Medicine, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, SciVerse Scopus TopCited e Web of Science em março de 2021. Foram incluídos artigos em português, inglês e espanhol, sem delimitação de tempo na busca.

Resultados:

foram encontrados 49 artigos. Na inserção, as medidas envolveram higienização das mãos, preparo da pele, técnica no touch, técnica asséptica e barreira de proteção, componentes estéreis e transdutores, inserção do cateter arterial periférico, tentativas de inserção, uso do ultrassom e medidas de conforto. Na manutenção, questões sobre o sítio de inserção, circuito da pressão arterial invasiva, conectores, curativo e estabilização foram identificadas e, na retirada, aspectos como complicações locais e sistêmicas, após retirada do cateter arterial periférico.

Conclusão:

o estudo fornece informações cruciais para o eficaz manejo do cateter arterial periférico, contribuindo para a redução de complicações e aprimoramento dos resultados clínicos. Ao atualizar suas práticas, os profissionais de saúde podem assegurar maior segurança e bem-estar aos pacientes, buscando sempre oferecer um atendimento de excelência.

DESCRITORES:
Dispositivos de Acesso Vascular; Sepse; Cateterismo Periférico; Adulto; Enfermagem

INTRODUCTION

Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) occur in hospital settings or after discharge, and can cause serious complications for patients, such as prolonged hospitalization, increased treatment costs and, in more serious cases, even risk of death1.

It is noteworthy that the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and the sectors that care for critical patients are places with a higher risk of HAIs, due to patient characteristics, greater consistency in antibiotic use, greater professional contact with patients and disruption of tissue barriers during invasive procedures1^-5. Among the invasive procedures necessary for critically ill patients, invasive blood pressure (IBP) stands out, which includes peripheral arterial catheter (PAC) insertion6.

IBP is considered the gold standard in critically ill hospitalized patients, as it provides a accurate and rigorous measurement, making it crucial for decision-making6^-8. Vascular or infectious complications may arise during PAC use, such as pain, edema, ischemia and others9. This justifies the importance of professionals’ theoretical-scientific knowledge regarding device management to avoid complications that may arise.

Continuous improvements to PAC management and adherence to team and patient care practices are necessary to prevent HAIs. Systematic care use will guarantee safety and quality of work for ICU professionals and reduce these infections10^-11. In this regard, this research will contribute to safe healthcare practice, in order to direct strategies with a view to reducing occurrences of PAC. Therefore, this study aimed to describe scientific evidence on good practices for PAC management.

METHOD

This is an integrative literature review, carried out through six steps12: theme or research question definition; investigation in databases according to adopted search criteria; data collect; critical analysis of studies and classification of the level of evidence; interpretation and synthesis of results; synthesis of knowledge. To this end, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flowchart was followed13. The integrative review question was created based on the PICO14 strategy, which considered (P) patient - “adult admitted to the ICU”, (I) intervention - “PAC”, (C) comparison - “not applicable” and (O) Outcome - “infection”, which generated the following guiding question: what is the scientific evidence regarding prevention and control measures for bloodstream infections related to PAC management in hospitalized adult patients?

The search for articles took place in March 2021 in the Latin American and Caribbean Literature in Health Sciences (LILACS), Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde Enfermagem (BDENF), Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health (CINAHL), National Library of Medicine (PubMed), Cochrane Library (Cochrane), Excerpta Medica dataBASE (Embase), SciVerse Scopus TopCited (Scopus), and Web of Science databases described in the Figure 1.Crossing occurred through the controlled descriptors “Vascular Access Devices”, “Sepsis”, “Peripheral Catheterism”, “Adult” and “Nursing”, belonging to the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and the Health Sciences Descriptors (DeCS).

Articles, protocols, guidelines and guidelines, published in Portuguese, English or Spanish, without delimiting publication time related to PAC and covering the adult population, were included. It is noteworthy that studies with other catheters were also included, such as peripheral venous intravenous catheter (PVIC) and central venous catheter (CVC), due to the scarcity of articles on specific PAC care, in addition to the fact that some care aimed at PVIC and CVC may be useful for PAC. Duplicate articles, editorials, dissertations, theses, works in other languages and that did not cover PAC in the adult population were excluded. The results were extracted using an adapted data collection instrument15. To define the level of evidence, classification according to Evidence-Based Practice, Step by Step16 was used. Afterwards, categories and subcategories were produced to designate PAC care in its insertion, maintenance and removal.

RESULTS

In total, 49 studies were included in the research, such as articles, guidelines and guidelines, subsequently emerging analytical categories and subcategories described below Figura 1. Of these 49 selected studies, 17 were included in more than one category.

PAC insertion17^-56: PAC insertion. Hand hygiene. Skin preparation. No-touch technique. Aseptic technique and protection barrier. Sterile components and transducers. PAC insertion. Insertion attempts. Ultrasound (US) use. Comfort measures. PAC maintenance17^,20^,21^,24^,26^,35^-37^,40^,42^,48^,50^,55^-64: Insertion site. PAC circuit. Connectors. Dressing. Stabilization. Dressing and device protection. PAC removal37^,58^,65 Local and systemic complications. Infection. Site care after PAC removal. Component disinfection.

Chart 1 presents the characteristics of studies included in the “Insertion” category according to article identification (ID), design, objective and approach and evidence level.

Figure 1 -
Adapted PRISMA flowchart13. Uberaba, MG, Brasil, 2022.

Chart 1 -
Characteristics of studies included in the “Insertion” category. Uberaba, MG, Brazil, 2022.

ID* LoE† place and date	Design	Objective	Approach
O’Grady et al.17 LoE†: VII USA/2002	Review, guideline	To create a guideline for the prevention of infections related to intravascular catheters.	Hand hygiene.
Maki, Crnich18 LoE†: VII USA/2003	Review	To identify the risks of healthcare-related infections caused by catheters in intensive care.	Skin antisepsis.
Cousins, O’Donnel19 LoE†: V USA/2004	Review	To examine the radial, brachial, axillary and femoral arterial puncture sites.	Puncture site.
Koh et al.20 LoE†: VI Australia/ 2008	Descriptive, quantitative, observational	To measure colonization and rates of catheter-related bloodstream infection in arterial catheters.	The choice of the radial artery without specifying which side of the limb. Infection rate.
Martins et al.21 LoE†: VI Brazil/2008	Descriptive, observational	To verify nursing professionals adherence to asepsis recommendations when installing and handling the PVC**.	Skin antisepsis.
Small et al.22 LoE†: II United Kingdom/2008	Randomized clinical trial	To compare the effectiveness of 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol and 70% isopropyl alcohol for skin disinfection to prevent catheter-related healthcare-related infections.	Skin antisepsis.
Lee et al.23 LoE†: II Taiwan/2009	Randomized clinical trial	To examine whether the scheduled change interval from 48 to 72 hours to 72 to 96 hours is a risk factor for PVC** infection.	Skin antisepsis.
López et al.24 LoE†: II Spain/2009	Randomized clinical trial	To investigate the clinical performance of a closed infusion system compared to an open system in PVC**.	For skin antisepsis, 70% alcohol.
Lemaster et al.25 LoE†: V USA/2010	Systematic review	To carry out a systematic review of CVC§ and PAC‡‡ studies inserted in emergencies.	Invasive line in emergency sectors and maximum barrier precautions.
Koh et al.26 LoE†: IV Australia/2012	Descriptive, quantitative, prospective and observational	To determine catheter colonization rates after removal.	Skin antisepsis, maximum sterile barrier, sterile drape and glove.
Vezzani et al.27 LoE†: VI Italy/2013	Descriptive, prospective, observational, review	To use ultrasound as a guide during vascular access procedures.	Ultrasound use, Allen test.
López et al.28 LoE†: II Spain/2014	Randomized clinical trial	To compare closed system PVC** with open system PVC**.	Skin antisepsis.
Calero et al. 29 LoE†: V Spain/2015	Systematic review	To establish which antiseptic solution is most suitable for skin antisepsis to prevent healthcare-related infections caused by catheter use.	Skin antisepsis.
Melo, et al.30 LoE†: VI Brazil/2015	Descriptive	To analyze the care provided by nursing professionals during peripheral venipuncture.	Skin antisepsis.
Choudhury et al.31 LoE†: II Australia/2016	Randomized clinical trial	To determine bacterial community structures in the skin at insertion sites and associated PVC**.	Skin antisepsis.
Evans et al.32 LoE†: IV Australia/2016	Descriptive, quantitative, comparative	To assess the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of two in situ diagnostic methods for healthcare-related infection prevention related to catheter use in adults hospitalized for burns.	Skin antisepsis, sterile technique, maximum protection barriers, ultrasound use.
Kiefer, Keller, Weekes33 LoE†: VI USA/2016	Descriptive and prospective	To assess the immediate and short-term incidence of complications from catheters in the internal jugular vein.	Ultrasound use.
Zhang et al.34 LoE†: VI Australia/2016	Descriptive, quantitative	To assess the results of bacteriological culture of intravascular catheters.	PAC‡‡ colonization.
Marsh et al.35 LoE†: II Australia/2018a	Randomized clinical trial	To compare two coverage methods for PVC**.	Skin antisepsis.
Rickard et al.36 LoE†: II Australia/2018	Randomized clinical trial	To compare the effectiveness and costs of three types of PVC** polyurethane dressings.	Skin antisepsis.
Timsit et al.37 LoE†: V France/2018	Review	To provide updated information on available knowledge on the epidemiology and diagnosis of CVC§ and PAC‡‡ complications in the Intensive Care Unit.	Ultrasound use.
Bakan, Arli38 LoE†: No categorization Turkey/2019	Methodological study, review	To develop a scale to assess nurses’ knowledge and attitudes about healthcare-related infection prevention related to PVC** and CVC§ use.	Hand hygiene before and after insertion; antiseptic and glove use.
Choudhury et al.39 LoE†: VI Australia/2019	Descriptive, quantitative	To assess the impact of PVC** insertion site colonization and the occurrence of primary bloodstream infections.	Skin antisepsis.
Lanza et al.40 LoE†: VI Brazil/2019	Descriptive	To analyze nursing professionals’ adherence to preventive measures for PVC** infection.	Skin antisepsis.
Parreira et al. 41 LoE†: III Portugal/2019	Clinical trial	To assess the impact of single-use disposable tourniquets and polyurethane dressings with reinforced edges on the occurrence of complications related to PVC** use.	Skin antisepsis.
Simin et al.42 LoE†: IV Serbia/ 2019	Descriptive	To determine the incidence, severity, and risk factors of PVC**-induced complications.	For skin antisepsis, 70% alcohol.
Simonetti et al.43 LoE†: VI Italy/2019	Descriptive, cross-sectional	To determine nursing students’ theoretical knowledge about evidence-based guidelines for managing PVC** insertion and investigate potential predictive factors associated with adherence to recommendations.	Skin antisepsis.
Buetti et al. 44 LoE†: IV France/2020	Descriptive, quantitative, comparative	To compare the use of two types of chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated dressings for primary bloodstream infections prevention.	Skin antisepsis, hand antisepsis, sterile glove, sterile field, mask and gown use.
Keogh et al. 45 LoE†: II Australia/2020	Randomized clinical trial	To assess the impact of a multifaceted intervention focused on PVC** maintenance.	Skin antisepsis.
Jiménez-Martínez et al.46 LoE†: VI M exico/2020	Descriptive	To analyze the benefits of cleaning the PVC** insertion site as a measure to maintain a functional short PVC** as a maintenance option.	Skin antisepsis.
Larsen et al. 47 LoE†: IV Australia/2020	Descriptive, prospective cohort	To identify modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors for PVC** failure.	Skin antisepsis, sterile gloves and sterile, disposable transducer kit.
Liu et al. 48 LoE†: VI China/2020	Descriptive	To identify the incidence, risk factors, and medical costs of complications related to PVC** use.	Skin antisepsis.
Pérez-Granda et al.49 LoE†: II Spain/2020	Randomized clinical trial	To compare the phlebitis and colonization rates of PVC** tip.	Monitor the insertion site, skin antisepsis, 2% alcoholic chlorhexidine, connector disinfection, hand hygiene, change of gauze/dressing.
Schults et al.50 LoE†: VI Australia/2020	Descriptive, quantitative, observational	To describe PAC‡‡ insertion and management practices and associated complications.	Skin antisepsis and ultrasound use.
Takahashi et al.51 LoE†: II Japan/2020	Controlled clinical trial	To establish and assess an intervention method of a package of measures to prevent catheter failures.	Ultrasound use.
Timsit et al.52 LoE†: VII France/2020	Review, guideline	To develop guidelines for CVC§, PAC‡‡ and dialysis catheter management in the Intensive Care Unit.	Skin antisepsis.
Vendramim et al.53 LoE†: II Brazil/2020	Randomized clinical trial	To investigate the non-inferiority of clinically indicated PVC** replacement compared to routine replacement, every 96 hours, to prevent phlebitis.	Skin antisepsis.
Blanco-Mavillard et al.54 LoE†: II Spain/2021	Randomized clinical trial	To determine the effectiveness and costs of a multimodal intervention to reduce PVC** failure.	Skin antisepsis.
Larsen et al.55 LoE†: II Australia/2021	Randomized clinical trial	To compare PAC‡‡ dressing and fixation methods to prevent device failure in adult Intensive Care Unit.	Skin antisepsis, sterile gloves, lidocaine use.
Rickard et al.56 LoE†: II Australia/2021	Randomized clinical trial	To compare the effectiveness and costs of 7-day versus 4-day infusion set replacement to prevent catheter-related primary bloodstream infections.	Skin antisepsis, sterile field and sterile glove use.

• *ID: article identification; ^†LoE: level of evidence; **PVC: peripheral venous catheter; ^§CVC: central venous catheter; ^‡‡ PAC: peripheral arterial catheter.

Chart 2 presents the characteristics of studies included in the “Maintenance” category according to article identification (ID), design, objective, approach and level of evidence.

Chart 2 -
Characteristics of studies included in the “Maintenance” category. Uberaba, MG, Brazil, 2022.

ID* LoE†	Design	Objective	Main results/approach
Covey et al.57 LoE†: VI USA/1988	Descriptive	To examine the effects of three catheter-related healthcare-associated infection prevention protocols.	Change of sterile circuit, saline solution and transducer.
Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee58 LoE†: V USA/1996	Review	To develop guidelines to reduce infectious complications associated with intravascular device use.	Change of dressing, sterile circuit, saline solution and transducer.
O’Grady et al.17 LoE†: VII USA/2002	Review, guideline	To create a guideline for preventing infections related to intravascular catheters.	PAC‡‡ change time, change of sterile circuit, saline solution and transducer every 96 hours.
Maki et al.59 LoE†: VI USA/2006	Review	To identify the absolute and relative risks of bloodstream infection associated with various types of intravascular devices.	Catheter handling.
Koh et al.20 LoE†: VI Australia/ 2008	Descriptive, quantitative, observational	To measure colonization and rates of catheter-related bloodstream infection in arterial catheters.	Change of sterile circuit, saline solution and transducer.
Martins et al.21 LoE†: VI Brazil/2008	Descriptive, observational	To check nursing professionals’ adherence to asepsis recommendations when installing and handling the PVC**.	Connection antisepsis.
López et al.24 LoE†: II Spain/2009	Randomized clinical trial	To investigate the clinical performance of a closed infusion system compared to an open system in PVC**.	Dressing.
Koh et al.26 LoE†: IV Australia/2012	Descriptive, quantitative, prospective and observational	To determine colonization rates in CVC§, PACI, non-tunneled CVC§ and PICC†† segments after removal.	Change of sterile circuit, saline solution and transducer.
López et al. 24 LoE†: II Spain/2014	Controlled clinical trial	To compare closed system PVC** with open system PVC**.	Dressing, disinfection of connectors.
Gunther et al.60 LoE†: II France/2016	Randomized clinical trial	To describe post-insertion complications of intravascular access.	Dressing.
Loveday et al.61 LoE†: V England/2016	Review	To survey the evidence regarding dressings impregnated with 2% chlorhexidine gluconate.	Dressing.
Marsh et al.35 LoE†: II Australia/2018a	Randomized clinical trial	To compare two coverage methods for PVC**.	Dressing.
Marsh et al. 62 LoE†: II Australia/2018b	Quantitative, experimental, randomized, controlled	To compare the insertion of a PVC** by a general practitioner and nurse and specialists.	Dressing.
Rickard et al.36 LoE†: II Australia/2018	Randomized clinical trial	To compare the effectiveness and costs of polyurethane dressings to PVC**.	Dressing and stabilization device.
Timsit et al.37 LoE†: V France/2018	Review	To provide updated information on the available knowledge on epidemiology and diagnosis of CVC§ and arterial complications in the Intensive Care Unit.	Catheter change time.
Lanza et al.40 LoE†: VI Brazil/2019	Quantitative, cross-sectional	To analyze nursing professionals’ adherence to preventive measures for PVC** infection.	Connection antisepsis.
Etafa et al.63 LoE†: VI Ethiopia /2020	Descriptive	To assess undergraduate nursing students’ knowledge about evidence-based guidelines on PVC** management.	Hand hygiene, polyurethane dressing and gauze.
Liu et al.48 LoE†: VI China/2020	Descriptive	To identify the incidence, risk factors, and medical costs of PVC-induced complications.	Sterile transparent film use.
Schults et al.50 LoE†: VI Australia/2020	Descriptive, quantitative, observational	To describe PAC‡‡ insertion and management practices and associated complications.	Coverage and stabilization for PAC‡‡.
Larsen et al.55 LoE†: II Australia/2021	Randomized clinical trial	To establish the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial comparing methods of dressing and securing arterial catheters to prevent device failure.	Complications when using PAC‡‡ with dressing.
Rickard et al.56 LoE†: II Australia/2021	Randomized clinical trial	To compare the effectiveness and costs of 7-day versus 4-day infusion set replacement to prevent bloodstream infection related to CVC§, tunneled CVC§, PICC††, and PAC‡‡.	Change of sterile circuit, saline solution and transducer, antisepsis of dressings connectors.
Silva et al. 64 LoE†: VI Brazil/2021	Descriptive	To identify PVCII bloodstream infection control.	Dressing.

• *ID: article identification; ^†LoE level of evidence; ^‡‡PAC: peripheral arterial catheter; **PVC: peripheral venous catheter; ^§CVC: central venous catheter; ^††PICC: peripherally inserted central venous catheter.

Chart 3 describes the characteristics of the studies included in the “Removal” category according to article identification (ID), design, objective, approach and level of evidence.

Chart 3 -
Characteristics of studies included in the “Removal” category. Uberaba, MG, Brazil, 2022.

ID* LoE†	Design	Objective	Main results/approach
Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee58LoE†: V USA/1996	Review	To develop guidelines to reduce infectious complications associated with intravascular device use.	Cateter use time.
Timsit et al.37 LoE†: V France/2018	Review	To provide up-to-date information on the epidemiology and diagnosis of central venous catheter and peripheral arterial catheter complications.	Catheter use time and complications, ultrasound use, antisepsis.
Lye et al. 65 LoE†: V Australia/2019	Review	To assess the current literature related to removal versus retention of central venous catheters and intra-arterial lines with suspected infection in the adult intensive care population.	Cateter use time.

• *ID: article identification; ^†LoE level of evidence.

DISCUSSION

PAC insertion care varied between studies, such as hand hygiene and skin antisepsis with different antiseptics.

Studies with level I evidence in relation to hand hygiene were identified as follows: conventional soap and water or application of alcohol gel66; water and liquid soap; 60 to 80% alcohol without the presence of dirt1; solution based on 60% alcohol, ethanol or 70% isopropyl alcohol without the presence of dirt; non-antimicrobial or antimicrobial soap with water67. The study found in the literature highlighted the importance of hand hygiene and the use of gloves when handling the catheter38.

Regarding the recommendations for skin antisepsis before PAC insertion, this review has identified variations18^,22^,23^,29^-31^,35^,39^,41^-43^,45^,46^,52^-54 among them: chlorhexidine >0.5%1 with alcohol39^,43 and as an alternative iodine tincture, iodophor or 70% alcohol30^,41^,42^,46^,53^,66,10% alcohol43, alcohol-based chlorhexidine29, chlorhexidine18^,41, aqueous chlorhexidine29^,67 and 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in alcohol22^,31^,35^,45^,46^,52^,54, 75% alcohol23, 10% povidone-iodine23^,52^,68, investigations being1^,66^,67^,68 level of evidence I. No studies were found in this review that used the “no touch” technique for PAC insertion. However, do not touch the area after antisepsis of the insertion site has been carried out66, except if palpation is carried out with a sterile glove if necessary, it is recommended PVC insertion care, due to the non-use of a sterile glove in the procedure1^,69^-70. As for the protection barrier, studies described sterile cap25, glove25^,26^,32^,44^,47^,55^,56, sterile field25^,26^,32^,56, mask and gown use25^,32^,44, i.e., maximum protection barriers1^,25^,26^,32^,66^,71. The evidence from the studies ranged from level I to IV.

Research found in the literature identified using a sterile and disposable transducer kit together with the pressure bag47. It is recommended to use a disposable transducer1 or sterilize a reusable transducer, solution, tubing and pressure bag66, level of evidence I. It is important to highlight that, when choosing the radial artery as the puncture site, it is necessary to perform the Allen test27 due to collateral circulation19, considering age, the presence of comorbidity, skin conditions, patients’ mental state, in addition to the choice of the non-dominant limb1 with strong scientific evidence. These aspects are important for PVC use, and can be applied to PAC use, including choosing the artery to be punctured69. Professionals should opt for a catheter with a smaller caliber to avoid complications, such as mechanical phlebitis and flow obstruction1. Level of evidence I.

No evidence was identified in this study on the number of insertion attempts specific to the PAC, however, two puncture attempts per professional and a maximum of four attempts in total are recommended for peripheral puncture1 and PVC67. Level of evidence I.

Furthermore, an experienced professional must be called in case of failures1^,67. Studies with level of evidence II and VI recommendations identified that ultrasound (US)27^,32^,33^,37^,51 use contributes to the success of insertion and the minimization of complications, helping to reduce multiple attempts, improve vessel accuracy and reduce patient stress69. Level of evidence I.

To measure comfort, in addition to using 1% lidocaine55, the anesthetic button on the PAC with surgical thread should be considered when necessary10. Level of evidence II and V.

The literature recommends observing the need for the device to remain in place1, in addition to assessing it every four hours. In critically ill, sedated and cognitively impaired patients, assessment should be carried out every one/two hours and at least once during the shift1 in hospitalized patients69. In the presence of phlogistic signs (erythema, edema, pain, sensitivity, induration, drainage or rupture of the skin and heat), the device should be removed66, paying attention also to other changes, such as itching, hematoma and diaphoresis55. It is noteworthy that this review did not identify in the studies a specification of guidance on inspection. Level of evidence I.

Regarding change of sterile circuit, physiological solutions and transducer, there was divergence between studies, with results indicating every 96 hours17^,58, four to seven days56, 24 to 48 hours19^,57 and 72 hours20^,26. Concerning the level of evidence, the studies ranged from II to V. Current CDC, ANVISA and GORSKI recommendations point out that change should be done every 96 hours1^,66^,67, with high levels of evidence I. A study showed that the change infusion for seven days is safe when compared to four days56. Level of evidence II.

There are no recommendations regarding using heparin together with saline solution to maintain the PAC1 system circuit. Studies described connector antisepsis40 with 70% isopropyl alcohol56^,68, 70% alcohol21^,28^,49, with level II and VI recommendations, in addition to 70% ethyl alcohol69. Level of evidence I. Connectors must be changed after each disconnection or if dirt is present1^,69.

Sterile coverage (sterile, transparent, semipermeable gauze and adhesive tape with sterile polyurethane membrane and sponge dressing impregnated with 2% CHG) use prevents infection, reducing catheter displacement1^,24^,28^,48^,50^,56^,60^,61^,67, and other studies pointed to chlorhexidine coverage use44^,69. A study found in the literature showed a complication-free time of more than 11 hours when using a single-fixation dressing compared to polyurethane35. Level of evidence I to IV.

Regarding the management of CAP care, it is important to highlight the need to carry out training since their professional qualification, since the adoption of good practices involves constant updating63.

Changing the dressing must be carried out if there is humidity, dirt, coverage detachment, loss of dressing, no need to use a device, traction, compromised skin integrity66^-67. Level of evidence I. Diverging from the information above, the authors did not indicate a dressing change period62. Regarding stabilization, non-sterile adhesive tape and suture use was not recommended36^,50^,55. Level of evidence II and VI. Using barrier films for skin protection to reduce skin injuries was highlighted in a study69. Level of evidence I. Considering that catheter inspection contributes to infection control64.

With regards to removal, using PAC after seven days of using the device increases the risk of infection, especially when used in the femoral artery instead of the radial artery37, level of evidence V, although there is no evidence regarding the removal of the device with suspected infection65. Referring to complications and infection, insertion above the inguinal ligament can increase the risk of hemorrhage, air embolism, neurological injury, transient vascular occlusion, pseudoaneurysm and infection. Regarding insertion in the D radial, transient vascular occlusion may occur59^,72. Level of evidence I. Divergence in vessel caliber and diameter, multiple attempts, excessive manipulation59 and patients’ hemodynamic status contribute to the risk of complication of arterial vascular occlusion and catheter removal72.

No studies were identified in this review on insertion site care after PAC removal. It was expected to find evidence about compressive occlusive dressing to avoid vascular complications, such as bleeding and hematoma, which was not identified. Transducer care in relation to reprocessing stood out58^,66. Level of evidence V and I, respectively.

There were no studies that addressed specific care after removing the device and in relation to discomfort when using the device. The need for studies to fill these gaps is highlighted, to be applied in clinical nursing practice such as: training and training for PAC management; assessment of the presence of pain or discomfort; performing the sterile compression technique; and observation of signs of bleeding and hematoma in the first 12 hours after PAC removal.

Considering the risks of infection, an investigation showed similarity in CAP and CVC colonization in critically ill patients34^,59.

The limitation of this review considered the analysis of studies available in full through access intended for students, employees and professors of a federal public university, which may not include all studies published in the period selected for this investigation.

CONCLUSION

From the results of this review, it was possible to identify evidence about care related to PAC, highlighting hand hygiene, skin antisepsis, protection barrier, transducer use, technology use (US), the choice of cover, connectors and component disinfection.

Therefore, it is possible to emphasize that the importance of these practices favors the best application of PAC, minimizing complications regarding the use of devices related to patient pain, the performance of multiple punctures, among other events that should be avoided and questioned.

REFERENCES

• 1. Ministério da Saúde; Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária: Medidas para prevenir infecções relacionadas aos cuidados de saúde [Internet]. Brasília, DF(BR): Ministério da Saúde; 2017 [cited 2021 Oct 7]. 122 p. Available from: https://www.gov.br/anvisa/pt-br/centraisdeconteudo/publicacoes/servicosdesaude/publicacoes/caderno-4-medidas-de-prevencao-de-infeccao-relacionada-a-assistencia-a-saude.pdf
  » https://www.gov.br/anvisa/pt-br/centraisdeconteudo/publicacoes/servicosdesaude/publicacoes/caderno-4-medidas-de-prevencao-de-infeccao-relacionada-a-assistencia-a-saude.pdf
• 2. Ministério da Saúde; Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. Infecções notificadas por tipo de UTI [Internet]. Brasília, DF(BR): Ministério da Saúde ; 2022 [cited 2021 Oct 7]. Available from: https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiNzg4Mzg0NDctMDJiZS00ZWY0LTkyMzMtYWQ5YmQ4N2RhNDYyIiwidCI6ImI2N2FmMjNmLWMzZjMtNGQzNS04MGM3LWI3MDg1ZjVlZGQ4MSJ9
  » https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiNzg4Mzg0NDctMDJiZS00ZWY0LTkyMzMtYWQ5YmQ4N2RhNDYyIiwidCI6ImI2N2FmMjNmLWMzZjMtNGQzNS04MGM3LWI3MDg1ZjVlZGQ4MSJ9
• 3. Faria LBG, Santos CTB, Faustino AM, Oliveira LMAC, Cruz KCT. Conhecimento e adesão do enfermeiro às precauções padrão em unidades críticas. Texto Contexto Enferm [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2021 Nov 1];28:e20180144. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-265X-TCE-2016-0144
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-265X-TCE-2016-0144
• 4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Healthcare-associated Infections (HAI) Progress Report [Internet]. Estado Unidos: CDC; 2016 [cited 2022 Sep 4]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/hai/data/portal/progress-report.html
  » https://www.cdc.gov/hai/data/portal/progress-report.html
• 5. Ministério da Saúde; Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. Programa Nacional de Prevenção e Controle de Infecções Relacionadas à Assistência (PNPCIRAS) 2021 a 2025 [Internet]. Brasília, DF(BR): Ministério da Saúde ; 2021 [cited 2021 Oct 12]. 61 p. Available from: https://www.gov.br/anvisa/pt-br/centraisdeconteudo/publicacoes/servicosdesaude/publicacoes/pnpciras_2021_2025.pdf
  » https://www.gov.br/anvisa/pt-br/centraisdeconteudo/publicacoes/servicosdesaude/publicacoes/pnpciras_2021_2025.pdf
• 6. Pierin AMG, Mion JD. O impacto das descobertas de Riva-Rocci e Korotkoff. Rev Bras Hipertens [Internet]. 2001 [cited 2021 Jul 18];8(2):181-90. Available from: http://departamentos.cardiol.br/dha/revista/8-2/impacto.pdf
  » http://departamentos.cardiol.br/dha/revista/8-2/impacto.pdf
• 7. Saugel B, Dueck R, Wagner JY. Measurement of blood pressure. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2021 Sep 2];28(4):309-22. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpa.2014.08.001
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpa.2014.08.001
• 8. Ray-Barruel G, Xu H, Marsh N, Cooke M, Rickard CM. Effectiveness of insertion and maintenance bundles in preventing peripheral intravenous catheter-related complications and bloodstream infection in hospital patients: A systematic review. Infect Dis Health [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2022 Jun 8];24(3):152-68. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idh.2019.03.001
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idh.2019.03.001
• 9. Theodore AC, Clermont G, Dalton A. Intra-arterial catheterization for invasive monitoring: Indications, insertion techniques, and interpretation [Internet]. UpToDate [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2021 Oct 12]. Available from: https://medilib.ir/uptodate/show/8174
  » https://medilib.ir/uptodate/show/8174
• 10. Perin DC, Erdmann AL, Higashi GDC, Sasso TM. Evidências de cuidado para prevenção de infecção de corrente sanguínea relacionada ao cateter venoso central: Revisão sistemática. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2022 Jun 2];24:e2787. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.1233.2787
• 11. Silva MVO, Caregnato RCA. Unidade de Terapia Intensiva: Segurança e monitoramento de eventos adversos. Rev Enferm UFPE [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2022 Jun 12];13:e239368. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5205/1981-8963.2019.239368
  » https://doi.org/10.5205/1981-8963.2019.239368
• 12. Souza MT, Silva MD, Carvalho R. Revisão integrativa: O que é e como fazer. Rev Einstein [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2022 Jul 19];8(1):102-6. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1679-45082010RW1134
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1679-45082010RW1134
• 13. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Principais itens para relatar Revisões sistemáticas e Meta-análises: A recomendação PRISMA. Epidemiol Serv Saúde [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2022 Jan 23];24(2):335-42. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5123/S1679-49742015000200017
  » https://doi.org/10.5123/S1679-49742015000200017
• 14. Santos CMC, Pimenta CAM, Nobre MRC. A estratégia pico para a construção da pergunta de pesquisa e busca de evidências. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem [Internet]. 2007 [cited 2022 Sep 29];15(3):4. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-11692007000300023
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-11692007000300023
• 15. Ursi ES, Gavão CM. Prevenção de lesões de pele no perioperatório: revisão integrativa da literatura. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem [Internet]. 2006 [cited 2022 Aug 16];14(1):124-31. Available from: https://doi.org/10.11606/D.22.2005.tde-18072005-095456
  » https://doi.org/10.11606/D.22.2005.tde-18072005-095456
• 16. Fineout-Overholt E, Melnyk BM, Stillwell SB, Williamson KM. Evidence-based practice step by step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part I. Rev Am J Nurs [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2022 Sep 2];110(7):47-52. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000383935.22721.9c
  » https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000383935.22721.9c
• 17. O’Grady NP, Alexander M, Dellinger EP, Gerberding Jl, Heard SO, Maki DG, et al. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Rev Pediatrics [Internet]. 2002 [cited 2022 Sep 15];110(5):e51. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.110.5.e51
  » https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.110.5.e51
• 18. Maki DG, Crnich CJ. Line sepsis in the ICU: Prevention, diagnosis, and management. Rev Semin Respir Crit Care Med [Internet]. 2003 [cited 2022 Sep 19];24(1):23-36. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2003-37914
  » https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2003-37914
• 19. Cousins TR, O’Donnel JM. Arterial cannulation: A critical review. AANA J. 2004;72(4):267-71.
• 20. Koh DBC, Gowardman JR, Rickard CM, Robertson IK, Brown A. Prospective study of peripheral arterial catheter infection and comparison with concurrently sited central venous catheters. Rev Crit Care Med [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2022 Sep 3];36(2):397-402. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e318161f74b
  » https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e318161f74b
• 21. Martins KA, Tipple AFV, Souza ACS, Barreto RASS, Siqueira KM, Barbosa JM. Adesão às medidas de prevenção e controle de infecção de acesso vascular periférico pelos profissionais da equipe de enfermagem. Rev Ciênc Cuid Saúde [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2022 Sep 7];7(4):485-92. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4025/cienccuidsaude.v7i4.6634
  » https://doi.org/10.4025/cienccuidsaude.v7i4.6634
• 22. Small H, Adams D, Casey AL, Crosby CT, Lambert PA, Elliott T. Efficacy of adding 2% (w/v) chlorhexidine gluconate to 70% (v/v) isopropyl alcohol for skin disinfection prior to peripheral venous cannulation. Rev Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2022 Sep 8];29(10):963-5. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1086/590664
  » https://doi.org/10.1086/590664
• 23. Lee WL, Chen HL, Tsai TY, Chang WC, Huang CH, Fang CT. Risk factors for peripheral intravenous catheter infection in hospitalized patients: A prospective study of 3165 patients. Am J Infect Control [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2022 Sep 16];37(8):683-6. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2009.02.009
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2009.02.009
• 24. López JLG, Palacio EFD, Marti CB, Corral JO, Portal PH, Vilela AA. COSMOS - A study comparing peripheral intravenous systems. Br J Nurs [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2022 Sep 19];18(14):844-53. Available from: https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2009.18.14.43351
  » https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2009.18.14.43351
• 25. Lemaster CH, Agrawal AT, Hou P, Schuur JD. Systematic review of emergency department central venous and arterial catheter infection. Int J Emerg Med [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2022 Sep 6];3(4):409-23. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12245-010-0225-5
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s12245-010-0225-5
• 26. Koh DBC, Robertson IK, Watts M, Davies AN. Density of microbial colonization on external and internal surfaces of concurrently placed intravascular devices. Am J Crit Care [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2022 Sep 1];21(3):162-71. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2012675
  » https://doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2012675
• 27. Vezzani A, Manca T, Vercelli A, Braghieri A, Magnacavallo A. Ultrasonography as a guide during vascular access procedures and in the diagnosis of complications. J Ultrasound [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2022 Oct 4];16(4):161-70. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40477-013-0046-5
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s40477-013-0046-5
• 28. López JLG, Vilela AA, Palacio EFD, Corral JO, Martí CB, Portal PH. Indwell times, complications and costs of open vs closed safety peripheral intravenous catheters: A randomized study. J Hosp Infect [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2022 Sep 17];86(2):117-26. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2013.10.008
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2013.10.008
• 29. Calero MAR, Cerdá SMA, Juan EP, Sánchez DH. Antisépticos para la prevención de la infección relacionada con catéteres vasculares: Revisión sistemática. Rev Index Enferm [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2022 Sep 22];24(4):270-4. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4321/S1132-12962015000300018
  » https://doi.org/10.4321/S1132-12962015000300018
• 30. Melo EM, Aragão AL, Pessoa CMP, Lima FET, Barbosa IV, Studart RMB, et al. Cuidados dispensados pela equipe de enfermagem durante o procedimento de punção venosa periférica. Rev Enferm UFPE On Line [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2022 Sep 16];9(3):1022-30. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5205/1981-8963-v9i3a10430p1022-1030-2015
  » https://doi.org/10.5205/1981-8963-v9i3a10430p1022-1030-2015
• 31. Choudhury MA, Marsh N, Banu S, Paterson DL, Rickard CM, McMillan DJ. Molecular comparison of bacterial communities on peripheral intravenous catheters and matched skin Swabs. PLoS One [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2022 Sep 13];11(1):e0146354. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146354
  » https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146354
• 32. Evans O, Gowardman J, Rabbolini D, McGrail M, Rickard CM. In situ diagnostic methods for catheter related bloodstream infection in burns patients: A pilot study. Rev Burns [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2022 Sep 12];42(2):434-40. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2015.07.004
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2015.07.004
• 33. Kiefer D, Keller SM, Weekes A. Prospective evaluation of ultrasound-guided short catheter placement in internal jugular veins of difficult venous access patients. Rev Am J Emerg Med [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2022 Sep 7];34(3):578-81. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2015.11.069
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2015.11.069
• 34. Zhang L, Gowardman J, Morrison M, Runnegar N, Rickard CM. Microbial biofilms associated with intravascular catheter-related bloodstream infections in adult intensive care patients. Rev Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2022 Oct 2];35(2):201-5. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-015-2530-7
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-015-2530-7
• 35. Marsh N, Larsen E, Genzel J, Mihala G, Ullman AJ, Kleidon T, et al. A novel integrated dressing to secure peripheral intravenous catheters in an adult acute hospital: A pilot randomised controlled trial. Rev Trials [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2022 Oct 14];19(1):596. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2985-9a
  » https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2985-9a
• 36. Rickard CM, Marsh N, Webster J, Runnegar N, Larsen E, McGrail MR, et al. Dressings and securements for the prevention of peripheral intravenous catheter failure in adults (SAVE): A pragmatic, randomised controlled, superiority trial. Lancet [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2022 Sep 8];392(10145):419-30. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31380-1
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31380-1
• 37. Timsit JF, Rupp M, Bouza E, Chopra V, Kärpänen T, Laupland K, et al. A state of the art review on optimal practices to prevent, recognize, and manage complications associated with intravascular devices in the critically ill. Rev Intensive Care Med [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2022 Sep 6];44(6):742-59. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-018-5212-y
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-018-5212-y
• 38. Bakan AB, Arli SK. Development of the peripheral and central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection prevention knowledge and attitudes scale. Nurs Crit Care [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2022 Sep 20]; 26(1):35-41. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12422
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12422
• 39. Choudhury MA, Sidjabat HE, Zowawi HM, Marsh N, Larsen E, Runnegar N, et al. Skin colonization at peripheral intravenous catheter insertion sites increases the risk of catheter colonization and infection. Am J Infect Control [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2022 Sep 20];47(12):1484-8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2019.06.002
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2019.06.002
• 40. Lanza VE, Alves APP, Camargo AMS, Cacciari P, Montandon DS, Godoy S. Medidas preventivas de infecção relacionada ao cateter venoso periférico: Adesão em terapia intensiva. Rev Rene [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2022 Sep 10];20(1):e40715. Available from: https://doi.org/10.15235/2175-6783.20192040715
  » https://doi.org/10.15235/2175-6783.20192040715
• 41. Parreira P, Serambeque B, Costa PS, Mónico LS, Oliveira V, Sousa LB, et al. Impact of an innovative securement dressing and tourniquet in peripheral intravenous catheter-related complications and contamination: An interventional study. Int J Environ Res Public Health [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2022 Oct 16];16(18):3301. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16183301
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16183301
• 42. Simin D, Milutinovic D, Turkulov V, Brkic S. Incidence, severity and risk factors of peripheral intravenous cannula-induced complications: An observational prospective study. J Clin Nurs [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2022 Sep 19];28(9-10):1585-99. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14760
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14760
• 43. Simonetti V, Comparcini D, Miniscalco D, Tirabassi R, Giovanni PD, Cicolini G. Assessing nursing students’ knowledge of evidence-based guidelines on the management of peripheral venous catheters: A multicentre cross-sectional study. Nurse Educ Today [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2022 Sep 17];73:77-82. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.11.023
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.11.023
• 44. Buetti N, Ruckly S, Schwebel C, Mimoz O, Mimoz O, Souweine B, et al. Chlorhexidine-impregnated sponge versus chlorhexidine gel dressing for short-term intravascular catheters: Which one is better? Crit Care [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 Sep 7];24(1):458. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-03174-0
  » https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-03174-0
• 45. Keogh S, Shelverton C, Flynn J, Mihala G, Mathew S, Davies KM, et al. Implementation and evaluation of short peripheral intravenous catheter flushing guidelines: A stepped wedge cluster randomised trial. BMC Med [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 Sep 6];18(1):252. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01728-1
  » https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01728-1
• 46. Jiménez-Martínez D, Atescatenco-Pineda G, Flores-Montes I, Ordiano-Ramirez M, Bernal-Ponce NL, Cervera-Rojo M. Beneficios de la asepsia del sítio de inserción del catéter venoso periférico corto. Análisis de datos secundários. Rev Enferm Inst Mex Seguro Soc [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 Oct 10];28(3):192-9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.24875/REIMSS.M20000007
  » https://doi.org/10.24875/REIMSS.M20000007
• 47. Larsen EN, Marsh N, O’Brien C, Monteagle E, Friese C, Rickard CM. Inherent and modifiable risk factors for peripheral venous catheter failure during cancer treatment: A prospective cohort study. Support Care Cancer [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 Sep 15];29(3):1487-96. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-020-05643-2
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-020-05643-2
• 48. Liu C, Chen L, Kong D, Lyu F, Luan L, Yang L. Incidence, risk factors and medical cost of peripheral intravenous catheter-related complications in hospitalised adult patients. J Vasc Access [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 Sep 4];23(1):57-66. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1129729820978124
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1129729820978124
• 49. Pérez- Granda MJ, Bouza E, Pinilla B, Cruces R, González A, Millán J, et al. Randomized clinical trial analyzing maintenance of peripheral venous catheters in an internal medicine unit: Heparin vs. saline. PLoS One [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 Sep 11];15(1):e0226251. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226251
  » https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226251
• 50. Schults JA, Long D, Pearson K, Takashima M, Baveas T, Schlapbach LJ, et al. Insertion, management, and complications associated with arterial catheters in paediatric intensive care: A clinical audit. Aust Crit Care [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 Jul 6];33(4):326-32. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2019.05.003
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2019.05.003
• 51. Takahashi T, Murayama R, Abe-Doi M, Miyahara-Kaneko M, Kanno C, Nakamura M, et al. Preventing peripheral intravenous catheter failure by reducing mechanical irritation. Scien Rep [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 Sep 15];10(1):1550. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-56873-2
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-56873-2
• 52. Timsit JF, Baleine J, Bernard L, Calvino-Gunther S, Darmon M, Dellamonica J, et al. Expert consensus-based clinical practice guidelines management of intravascular catheters in the intensive care unit. Ann Intensive Care [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 Sep 30];10(1):118. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-020-00713-4
  » https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-020-00713-4
• 53. Vendramim P, Avelar AFM, Rickard CM, Pedreira MDLG. The RESPECT trial-Replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters according to clinical reasons or every 96 hours: A randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Int J Nurs Stud [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 Sep 17];107:103504. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.103504
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.103504
• 54. Blanco-Mavillard I, Pedro-Gómez JE, Rodríguez- Calero MA, Bennasar-Veny M, Parra-García G, Fernández-Fernández I, et al. Multimodal intervention for preventing peripheral intravenous catheter failure in adults (PREBACP): A multicentre, cluster-randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Haematol [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2022 Sep 16];8(9):637-47. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3026(21)00206-4
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3026(21)00206-4
• 55. Larsen EN, Corley A, Mitchell M, Lye I, Powel M, Tom S, et al. A pilot randomised controlled trial of dressing and securement methods to prevent arterial catheter failure in intensive care. Aust Crit Care [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2022 Sep 12];34(1):38-46. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2020.05.004
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2020.05.004
• 56. Rickard C, Marsh NM, Larsen EN, McGrail MR, Graves N, Runnegar N, et al. Effect of infusion set replacement intervals on catheter-related bloodstream infections (RSVP): A randomised, controlled, equivalence (central venous access device) -non-inferiority (peripheral arterial catheter) trial. Lancet [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2022 Sep 23];397:1447-58. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00351-2
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00351-2
• 57. Covey M, Mclane C, Smith N, Matasic J, Holm K. Infection related to intravascular pressure monitoring: Effects of flush and tubing changes. Am J Infect Control [Internet]. 1988 [cited 2022 Sep 17];16(5):206-13. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/0196-6553(88)90061-2
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/0196-6553(88)90061-2
• 58. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Part II. Recommendations for the prevention of nosocomial intravascular device-related infections. Am J Infec Control [Internet]. 1996 [cited 2022 Sep 10];24(4):277-93. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-6553(96)90059-0
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-6553(96)90059-0
• 59. Maki DG, Kluger DM, Crnich CJ. The risk of bloodstream infection in adults with different intravascular devices: A systematic review of 200 published prospective studies. Mayo Clin Proc [Internet]. 2006 [cited 2022 Sep 20];81(9):1159-71. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4065/81.9.1159
  » https://doi.org/10.4065/81.9.1159
• 60. Gunther SC, Schwebel C, Hamidfar-Roy R, Bonadona A, Lugosi M, Ara-Somohano C, et al. Complications of intravascular catheters in ICU: Definitions, incidence and severity. A randomized controlled trial comparing usual transparent dressings versus new-generation dressings (the ADVANCED study). Intensive Care Med [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2022 Jul 19];42(11):1753-65. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-016-4582-2
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-016-4582-2
• 61. Loveday HP, Wilson JA, Prieto J, Wilcox MH. Epic3: Revised recommendation for intravenous catheter and catheter site care. J Hosp Infect [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2022 Jun 17];92(4):346-48. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2015.11.011
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2015.11.011
• 62. Marsh N, Webster J, Larsen E, Genzel J, Cooke M, Mihala G, et al. Expert versus generalist inserters for peripheral intravenous catheter insertion: A pilot randomised controlled trial. Rev Trial [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2022 Jun 6];19(1):564. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2946-3b
  » https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2946-3b
• 63. Etafa W, Wakuma B, Tsegaye R, Takele T. Nursing students’ knowledge on the management of peripheral venous catheters at Wollega University. PLoS One [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 Sep 20];15(9):e0238881. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238881
  » https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238881
• 64. Silva MCM, Costa PC, Aguiar BGC, Freitas VL, Pereira GL. Atuação da enfermagem no controle de infecção da corrente sanguínea relacionada aos cateteres venosos periféricos. Rev Enferm UFPE On Line [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2022 Jul 7];15(2):e247901. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5205/1981- 8963.2021.247901
  » https://doi.org/10.5205/1981- 8963.2021.247901
• 65. Lye I, Corley A, Richard CM, Marsh N. Removal versus retention of vascular access devices (VADs) suspected of infection in the intensive care unit (ICU): A narrative review of the literature. Vascular Access [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2022 Jul 18];5(2):42-8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.33235/va.5.2.42-48
  » https://doi.org/10.33235/va.5.2.42-48
• 66. O’Grady NP, Alexander M, Burns LA, Dellinger EP, Garland J, Heard SO, et al. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Clin Infect Dis [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2022 Sep 15];52(9):e162-93. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cir257
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cir257
• 67. Gorski LA, Hadaway L, Hagle ME, Broadhurst D, Clare S, Kleidon T, et al. Infusion therapy standards of practice. J Infus Nurs [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Sep 10];44:S1-224. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/NAN.0000000000000396
  » https://doi.org/10.1097/NAN.0000000000000396
• 68. Pittiruti M, Scoppettuolo G. Recomendações Gavecelt 2021 para indicação, planta e gestão de dispositivos para acesso venoso [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Sep 23]. 67 p. Available from: https://www.gavecelt.it/nuovo/sites/default/files/uploads/Raccomandazioni%20GAVeCeLT%202021%20-%20v.2.0.pdf
  » https://www.gavecelt.it/nuovo/sites/default/files/uploads/Raccomandazioni%20GAVeCeLT%202021%20-%20v.2.0.pdf
• 69. Ramírez JM, Hernández CL, Armond GA, Caudillo MB, Carrara D, Casi DP, et al. Recomendaciones sobre mejores prácticas en el manejo de los cateteres venosos periféricos cortos. México, (MX): Secretaría de Salud, Gobierno de México; 2020 [cited 2021 Sep 17]. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353679805_RECOMENDACIONES_SOBRE_MEJORES_PRACTICAS_EN_EL_MANEJO_DE_LOS_CATETERES_VENOSOS_PERIFERICOS_CORTOS
  » https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353679805_RECOMENDACIONES_SOBRE_MEJORES_PRACTICAS_EN_EL_MANEJO_DE_LOS_CATETERES_VENOSOS_PERIFERICOS_CORTOS
• 70. Rowley S, Clare S, Macqueen S, Molyneux R. ANTT v2: An updated practice framework for aseptic technique. Br J Nurs [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2022 Sep 20];19(5):5-S11. Available from: https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2010.19.Sup1.47079
  » https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2010.19.Sup1.47079
• 71. Prävention von Infektionen, die von Gefäßkathetern ausgehen. Teil 2 - Periphervenöse Verweilkanülen und arterielle Katheter Empfehlung der Kommission für Krankenhaushygiene und Infektionsprävention (KRINKO) beim Robert Koch-Institut. Bundesgesundheit [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2022 Sep 25];60(2) 207-15. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-016-2488-3
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-016-2488-3
• 72. Simon EM, Summers SM. Vascular access complications an emergency medicine approach. Rev Emerg Med Clin North Am [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2022 Sep 20];35(4):771-88. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emc.2017.06.004
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emc.2017.06.004

NOTES

• ORIGIN OF THE ARTICLE

  Article extracted from the dissertation “Prevenção e controle de infecção relacionada ao manejo de cateter arterial periférico em adultos internados: review integrativa”, presented to the Stricto Sensu Graduate Program in Healthcare, Universidade Federal do Triângulo Mineiro in 2023.

• FUNDING INFORMATION

  This study was financed by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brazil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001.

• TRANSLATED BY

  Letícia Belasco

Edited by

EDITORS

Associated Editors: Gisele Cristina Manfrini, Ana Izabel Jatobá de Souza. Editor-in-chief: Elisiane Lorenzini.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  24 May 2024
• Date of issue
  2024

History

• Received
  27 Aug 2023
• Accepted
  27 Oct 2023