Effectiveness of the transparent sterile dressing vs standard to fix the peripheral venous catheter (PVC) on the incidence of phlebitis. A randomized controlled trial

Effectiveness of the transparent sterile dressing vs standard to fix the peripheral venous catheter (PVC), on the incidence of phlebitis. A randomized controlled trial. Introduction. The type of dressing could contribute to the incidence of phlebitis, infiltration and accidental removals but the results of the studies are contrasting and samples are limited. Aim. To compare the effectiveness of a transparent polyurethane sterile dressing on the rate of phlebitis associated to peripheral venous catheter (PVC) vs a non sterile sticking plaster in use in current practice (standard dressing). Design. Randomized controlled trial. Participants. 1061 PVCs (703 patients, adults and children) at a research orthopedic hospital in the north of Italy; 540 PVCs allocated to receive the sterile and 521 the standard dressing. Results. 96 PVCs were excluded for phlebitis, 48 (9.6%) in the sterile and 48 (10.1%) in the standard dressing group, RR 0.96 (95%CI 0.697 - 1.335). Accidental removal of the PVCs was more frequent with the sterile dressing (9.6% vs 6.3%) but the number of catheters removed without complications was larger in the standard dressing group (48.9% vs 54.9% P=0.0503). Eighty-five PVCs were replaced for detachment of the dressing (50, 9.2% sterile and 35, 6.7% standard dressing). The cheapest transparent sterile dressing costs 32 cents while the standard 9 cents. Conclusions. A sticking non sterile plasters is not influential on the rate of phlebitis and ensures an good fix of the PVC compared the transparent sterile dressing to of polyurethane film.