Developing a Research base for Intravenous Peripheral cannula re-sites (DRIP trial). A randomised controlled trial of hospital in-patients

BackgroundThere is currently no high grade evidence on which to base decisions about the frequency of intravenous cannula re-sites.ObjectiveTo assess the safety of changing peripheral venous cannulas when clinically indicated.DesignRandomised controlled trial.SettingA tertiary referral hospital in Brisbane, Australia.ParticipantsTwo hundred and six hospitalised patients from surgical, medical and orthopaedic wards.InterventionsPeripheral intravenous cannulas were re-sited only when complications occurred (intervention group) or every 3 days (control group).Main outcome measuresThe primary endpoint was any unplanned cannula removal, the secondary outcome was cost.ResultsForty six patients had unplanned removals in the intervention group compared with 41 in the control group [relative risk 1.12, 95% confidence interval 0.81–1.55 (p=0.286)], a non-significant difference. Total duration of peripheral cannulation was similar in both groups (mean 123.3 h in the intervention group and 125.9 h in the control group: P=0.82) but significantly more re-sites occurred in the control group (167 in intervention group, 202 in the control group: p=0.022). Cost of cannula replacements in the intervention group was AUD$3,183.62 and in the control group AUD$3,837.56 (p=0.006).ConclusionRe-siting peripheral venous cannulas when clinically indicated compared with changing them routinely every 3 days does not lead to more complications and reduces costs.