↓ Skip to main content

Routine versus clinically indicated replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters: a randomised controlled equivalence trial

Overview of attention for article published in The Lancet, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
325 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
467 Mendeley
citeulike
6 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Routine versus clinically indicated replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters: a randomised controlled equivalence trial
Published in
The Lancet, September 2012
DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(12)61082-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claire M Rickard, Joan Webster, Marianne C Wallis, Nicole Marsh, Matthew R McGrail, Venessa French, Lynelle Foster, Peter Gallagher, John R Gowardman, Li Zhang, Alice McClymont, Michael Whitby

Abstract

The millions of peripheral intravenous catheters used each year are recommended for 72-96 h replacement in adults. This routine replacement increases health-care costs and staff workload and requires patients to undergo repeated invasive procedures. The effectiveness of the practice is not well established. Our hypothesis was that clinically indicated catheter replacement is of equal benefit to routine replacement. This multicentre, randomised, non-blinded equivalence trial recruited adults (≥18 years) with an intravenous catheter of expected use longer than 4 days from three hospitals in Queensland, Australia, between May 20, 2008, and Sept 9, 2009. Computer-generated random assignment (1:1 ratio, no blocking, stratified by hospital, concealed before allocation) was to clinically indicated replacement, or third daily routine replacement. Patients, clinical staff, and research nurses could not be masked after treatment allocation because of the nature of the intervention. The primary outcome was phlebitis during catheterisation or within 48 h after removal. The equivalence margin was set at 3%. Primary analysis was by intention to treat. Secondary endpoints were catheter-related bloodstream and local infections, all bloodstream infections, catheter tip colonisation, infusion failure, catheter numbers used, therapy duration, mortality, and costs. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12608000445370. All 3283 patients randomised (5907 catheters) were included in our analysis (1593 clinically indicated; 1690 routine replacement). Mean dwell time for catheters in situ on day 3 was 99 h (SD 54) when replaced as clinically indicated and 70 h (13) when routinely replaced. Phlebitis occurred in 114 of 1593 (7%) patients in the clinically indicated group and in 114 of 1690 (7%) patients in the routine replacement group, an absolute risk difference of 0·41% (95% CI -1·33 to 2·15%), which was within the prespecified 3% equivalence margin. No serious adverse events related to study interventions occurred. Peripheral intravenous catheters can be removed as clinically indicated; this policy will avoid millions of catheter insertions, associated discomfort, and substantial costs in both equipment and staff workload. Ongoing close monitoring should continue with timely treatment cessation and prompt removal for complications. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 167 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 467 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 1%
Brazil 5 1%
Japan 3 <1%
Australia 3 <1%
France 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 441 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 71 15%
Other 58 12%
Researcher 57 12%
Student > Master 52 11%
Student > Postgraduate 43 9%
Other 103 22%
Unknown 83 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 214 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 88 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 2%
Engineering 9 2%
Social Sciences 5 1%
Other 38 8%
Unknown 102 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 129. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 April 2024.
All research outputs
#329,930
of 25,753,031 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet
#3,415
of 42,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,595
of 188,907 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet
#20
of 483 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,753,031 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 42,985 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 67.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 188,907 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 483 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.