Winged Metal Needles versus Plastic Winged and Nonwinged Cannulae for Subcutaneous Infusions in Palliative Care: A Quality Improvement Project To Enhance Patient Care and Medical Staff Safety in a Singaporean Hospital

Background and Objectives: A comparison of metal needles and plastic cannulae (winged and nonwinged) for continuous subcutaneous infusion was done during a quality improvement project to reduce device-induced complications at our hospital. Design, Setting, and Measurements: Data were collected on incidence of site reactions (bruising, swelling, erythema, and blisters); mechanical complications (kinking and dislodgement); device durability; type, and volume of medications; and incidence of needle-stick injuries. All infusion devices used for patients in the Palliative Care Service from February 3 to March 26, 2014 were studied. Devices examined were: winged metal needle (Venofix((R)), 23G, B. Braun Melsungen AG, Melsungen, Germany), winged vialon cannula (BD Nexiva (TM), 24G, Becton Dickinson Infusion Therapy Systems Inc., Sandy, UT), and nonwinged polyurethane cannula (Introcan Safety((R)), 24G, B. Braun Medical, Mundelein, IL). Results: Thirty devices (10 per type) were used. Incidence of site reactions was 50.0%, 10.0%, and 0.0% for the metal needles, polyurethane cannulae, and vialon cannulae, respectively. Incidence of mechanical complications was 20.0% for the polyurethane cannulae and 0.0% for the metal needles and vialon cannulae. Duration of use was up to 60 hours, 83 hours, and 113 hours for the metal needles, polyurethane cannulae, and vialon cannulae, respectively. Daily volumes infused were up to 28.9 mL, 60.0 mL, and 29.4 mL for the metal needles, polyurethane cannulae, and vialon cannulae, respectively. No needle-stick injuries occurred. Conclusions: The winged vialon cannula was the most durable, with no site reactions or mechanical complications, tolerating a volume comparable to that of the metal needle. We suggest its utilization for continuous subcutaneous infusions and consideration of future randomized controlled trials with an integrated economic evaluation for further in-depth comparisons of subcutaneous indwelling devices.