To the Editor: Peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) infection has been highlighted by one of us (R L S) and colleagues as an important, costly and dangerous complication of PIVCs.1 Infection prevention programs often employ multifaceted interventions and, in the case of PIVC, much debate has been directed towards aseptic insertion and appropriate dwell times, but little attention has been directed to whether the PIVC is required.2
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1. Stuart RL, Cameron DRM, Scott C, et al. Peripheral intravenous catheter-associated Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: more than 5 years of prospective data from two tertiary health services. Med J Aust 2013; 198: 551-553. <MJA full text>
- 2. Rickard CM, Webster J, Wallis MC, et al. Routine versus clinically indicated replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters: a randomised controlled equivalence trial. Lancet 2012; 380: 1066-1074.
- 3. Lederle FA, Parenti CM, Berskow LC, Ellingson KJ. The idle intravenous catheter. Ann Intern Med 1992; 116: 737-738.
- 4. Limm EI, Fang X, Dendle C, et al. Half of all peripheral intravenous lines in an Australian tertiary emergency department are unused: pain with no gain? Ann Emerg Med 2013; pii: S0196-0644(13)00200-X. doi 10.1016/j.annemergmed. 2013.02.022 [Epub ahead of print].
No relevant disclosures.