ÇOCUKLARDA KULLANILAN BİLEK TESPİT TAHTASININ PERİFERİK VENÖZ KATETER KOMPLİKASYONLARINA ETKİSİ

Amaç: Periferik venöz kateterizasyon (PVK) hastaneye yatan çocukların %80’inden fazlasına yapılan invaziv girişimdir. Masum gibi görünen PVK, çocuklarda flebit, enfeksiyon, infiltrasyon, ekstravazasyon gibi çok sayıda komplikasyona, hatta ölüme neden olduğu bilinmektedir. Bu çalışmada, eklem bölgesinde PVK takılı olan pediatrik hastalarda yeni bir fiksasyon tahtasının (bilekayak bileği fiksasyon tespit yöntemi) PVK ömrü ve komplikasyon oranlarına etkisini değerlendirmek amaçlandı. Gereç ve yöntem: Haziran-Temmuz 2018 tarihleri arasında Çocuk Cerrahisi servisinde tedavi edilen ve eklem bölgesinde PVK takılan 49 hasta ileriye dönük olarak takip edildi. Hastalar ‘Grup 1’ bilek tespit tahtası kullanılan ve ‘Grup 2’ hipoalerjenik elastik fiksasyon bandı kullanılan kontrol grubu olarak ikiye ayrıldı. PVC ömrü ve komplikasyonları (infiltrasyon, enfeksiyon, yerinden olma) kaydedildi. Bulgular: Çalışmaya iki gruba ayrılacak şekilde 49 hasta dâhil edildi. Grup 1’de 25 hasta, Grup 2’de 24 hasta vardı. Gruplar arasında yaş ve cinsiyet açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulunmadı (p> 0,05). PVK ömrü yönünden değerlendirildiğinde Grup 1 (31,8 saat) ve 2 (29,5 saat) arasında fark saptanmadı (p = 0,151). Komplikasyon oranı Grup1’de %4, Grup 2’de % 29 olarak bulundu. İki grup arasındaki komplikasyon oran farkı istatistiksel olarak anlamlıydı (p = 0,02). Sonuç: PVK takılan çocuk hastalarda yeni bir fiksasyon tahtasının (bilek-ayak bileği fiksasyon tespit yöntemi) kullanımı ile, diğer yönteme göre komplikasyon oranının daha az olduğu saptandı. Fakat PVK ömrü ile ilgili anlamlı bir sonuç elde edilmedi.

EFFECTS OF WRIST FIXATION BOARD IN CHILDREN ON THE COMPLICATION RATES OF PERIPHERAL VENOUS CATHETERS

PURPOSE: Peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) insertion isthe most frequently used invasive intervention that is performed inmore than 80% of hospitalized children. It is a known that seeminglyinnocent PIVC may result in various morbidities such as phlebitis,infection, extravasations, and may even lead to mortality. In this study,we aimed to investigate the effect of a new fixation board (wrist-anklefixation board) on PIVC lifespan and complications rates in pediatricpatients undergoing PIVC insertion in the joint area.Material and methods: A total of 49 patients who weretreated in the pediatric surgery ward between June and July 2018and who underwent PIVC insertion were prospectively followed.The patients were divided into the following two groups: ‘Group 1’in which a wrist-ankle fixation board was used and ‘Group 2’, whichwas allocated as the control group using Hypoallergenic ElasticFixation Tape. PVC life and complications (infiltration, purification,displacement) were recorded.Results: Forty-nine patients were included in the present studyand they were divided into the following two groups: 25 patientsin Group 1 and 24 patients in Group 2. There were no statisticallysignificant differences between the groups in terms of age and gender(p>0.05).There was no statistically significant difference in PIVC lifespanbetween Groups 1 (31.8 hours) and 2 (29.5 hours) (p = 0.151). Thecomplication rate was noted to be 4% in Group 1 and 29% in Group2. The difference in complication rates between the two groups wasstatistically significant (p = 0.02).Conclusions: The rate of complications was lower in pediatricpatients with PIVC compared to the other method with the use of anew fixation board (ankle-ankle fixation fixation method). However,no significant results were obtained regarding PIVC life.

PDF

___

1.)Laudenbach N, Braun CA, Klaverkamp L, Hedman-Dennis S. Peripheral iv stabilization and the rate of complications in children: an exploratory study. J Pediatr Nurs. 2014; 29(4): 348-53.
2.)Saliba P, Hornero A, Cuervo G, et al. Interventions to decrease short-term peripheral venous catheter-related bloodstream infections. Impact on incidence and mortality. J Hosp Infect. 2018;100(3):178-86.
3.)Webster J, Osborne S, Rickard CM, New K. Clinically indicated replacement versus routine placement of peripheral venous catheters. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 30;(4):CD007798.
4.)Gunes A, Bramhagen AC. Heparin or sodium chloride for prolonging peripheral intravenous catheter use in children–A systematic review. J Pediatr Nurs. 2018; 43: 92-9.
5.)Özalp G, Kahraman A, Yardimci F, et al. Infiltration and extravasation in pediatric patients: A prevalence study in a children’s hospital. J Vasc Access. 2018;19(3): 266-71.
6.)Gupta P, Rai R, Basu S, Faridi MM. Life span of peripheral intravenous cannula in a neonatal intensive care unit of a developing country. J Pediatr Nurs. 2003; 18 (4): 287–92.
7.)Infusion Nursing Standards of Practice. Vol.34. 315 Norwood Park South, Norwood. Wolters Kluwer, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Pr;2011.p.46-7.
8.)O'Grady NP, Alexander M, Burns LA, et al. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2011; 52; 9: 162-93.
9.)Moreno Martin M, Villamor Ordozgoiti A, Gutiérrez Martín M, Santiago Bosch M, Grau Ferrer H, Gamero Saavedra T. Comparison of dressings and devices to secure peripheral venous catheters in the emergency department: suitability according to patient profile. Emergencias. 2016; 28(5) :320-26.
10.)Machado AF, Pedreira ML, Chaud MN. Prospective, randomized and controlled trial on the dwell time of peripheral intravenous catheters in children, according to three dressing regimens. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2005; 13(3): 291-98.
11.)Ben Abdelaziz R, Hafsi H, Hajji H, et al. Peripheral venous catheter complications in children: predisposing factors in a multicenter prospective cohort study. BMC Pediatr. 2017; 17(1): 208.
12.)Shenoy S, Karunakar BP. Factors influencing the peripheral venous catheter survival in critically ill children in a pediatric intensive care unit. Indian J Pediatr. 2014; 81(12): 1293–96.
13.)Hetzler R, Wilson M, Hill EK, Hollenback C. Securing pediatric peripheral i.v.catheters–application of an evidence-based practice model. J Pediatr Nurs. 2011; 26(2): 143–48.
14.)Loveday HP, Wilson JA, Pratt RJ, et al. National evidencebased guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections in NHS hospitals in England. J Hosp Infect. 2014; 86(1) : 1–70.
15.)Infusion Nursing Standards of Practice. Vol.34. 315 Norwood Park South, Norwood. Wolters Kluwer, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Pr;2011.p.65-6.
16.)Legemaat M, Carr PJ, van Rens RM, van Dijk M, Poslawsky IE, van den Hoogen A. Peripheral intravenous cannulation: complication rates in the neonatal population: a multicenter observational study. J Vasc Access. 2016; 17(4): 360–65.
17.)Unbeck M, Forberg U, Ygge BM, Ehrenberg A, Petzold M, Johansson E. Peripheral venous catheter related complications are common among paediatric and neonatal patients. Acta Paediatr. 2015; 104(6): 566–74.
18.)Marsh N, Webster J, Mihala G, Rickard CM. Devices and dressings to secure peripheral venous catheters: a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2017; 67: 12–9.
19.)Hugill K. Is there an optimal way of securing peripheral IV catheters in children? Br J Nurs. 2016; 25(19): 20–1.
20.)Ullman A, Marsh N, Rickard C. Securement for vascular access devices: looking to the future. Br J Nurs. 2017; 26(8): 24–6.
21.)Malyon, L, Ullman AJ, Phillips N, et al. Peripheral intravenous catheter duration and failure in paediatric acute care: a prospective cohort study. Emerg Med Australas. 2014; 26(6): 602-8.
22.)Limm EI, Fang X, Dendle C, Stuart RL, Egerton Warburton D. Half of all peripheral intravenous lines in an Australian tertiary emergency department are unused: pain with no gain? Ann Emerg Med. 2013; 62(5): 521–25.