Safety of the Peripheral Administration of Vasopressor Agents

Vasopressors are an integral component of the management of septic shock and are traditionally given via a central venous catheter (CVC) due to the risk of tissue injury and necrosis if extravasated. However, the need for a CVC for the management of septic shock has been questioned, and the risk of extravasation and incidence of severe injury when vasopressors are given via a peripheral venous line (PVL) remains poorly defined. We performed a retrospective chart review of 202 patients who received vasopressors through a PVL. The objective was to describe the vasopressors administered peripherally, PVL size and location, the incidence of extravasation events, and the management of extravasation events. The primary vasopressors used were norepinephrine and phenylephrine. The most common PVL sites used were the forearm and antecubital fossa. The incidence of extravasation was 4%. All of the events were managed conservatively; none required an antidote or surgical management. Vasopressors were restarted at another peripheral site in 88% of the events. The incidence of extravasation was similar to prior studies. The use of a PVL for administration of vasopressors can be considered in patients with a contraindication to a CVC.

Care of Peripheral Venous Catheter Sites: Advantages of Transparent Film Dressings Over Tape and Gauze

Peripheral intravenous (PIV) catheters are the most commonly used catheters in hospitals, with up to 70% of patients requiring a peripheral venous line during their hospital stay. This represents 200 million PIV catheters used per year in acute-care hospitals in the United States alone. These medical devices are also used in other health care settings, such as long-term care facilities and nursing homes, and common indications include the administration of medications, nutrients, and fluids. These catheters require proper maintenance and care to avoid complications such as phlebitis, infiltration, occlusion, local infection, and bloodstream infection. Recently it has been suggested that PIV catheter use may lead to a higher rate of complications than previously thought. This is important because some studies have claimed that the rate of bloodstream infections due to PIV catheters is actually comparable to the rates observed with central venous catheters, rather than much lower as previously thought. Moreover, catheter-related infections are now seen as largely preventable. Our goal was to review the current literature and provide an overview of the various approaches used to manage PIV catheter sites as well as review current recommendations.