Articles Tập 67 Số CĐ14-HNKH Hội Hóa sinh Y học Việt Nam 17/09/2026

ASSESSMENT OF PERIPHERAL INTRAVENOUS CATHETER-RELATED PHLEBITIS AT DUC GIANG GENERAL HOSPITAL IN 2025

Nguyen Thi Ngoc Dung, Nguyen Dang Vung, Nguyen Huu Thang, Nguyen Thi Huong Cha
DOI: 10.52163/yhc.v67iCD14.6583
0 Views
0 Downloads
Abstract

Objective: To determine the prevalence and severity of peripheral intravenous catheter
(PIVC)-related phlebitis and to identify associated factors among hospitalized patients at Duc
Giang General Hospital in 2025.
Subjects and methods: A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted among 347
hospitalized patients aged ≥18 years with a peripheral intravenous catheter at Duc Giang
General Hospital (April–September 2025, 13 clinical departments). Phlebitis was assessed at a
single time point using the Visual Infusion Phlebitis (VIP) Scale. Data were collected through
medical record review, patient interviews, and direct observation of the catheter site.
Prevalence is reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI); crude associations are reported as
odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI (Fisher's exact test).
Results: The point prevalence of PIVC-related phlebitis was 14.1% (49/347; 95% CI
10.8–18.2). All cases were mild: Grade I 11.8% (95% CI 8.8–15.6) and Grade II 2.3% (95%
CI 1.2–4.5); no Grade III–V was recorded. In univariate analysis, phlebitis was significantly
associated with age ≥50 years (OR 2.51; 95% CI 1.13–5.56), catheter dwell time of >48–72
hours versus 24–48 hours (OR 4.01; 95% CI 1.89–8.51), and ≥4 insertion attempts versus 1–3
(OR 5.62; 95% CI 2.10–15.06). The presence of comorbidities was not significantly
associated with phlebitis (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.56–1.88).
Conclusion: PIVC-related phlebitis was observed in about one in seven catheterized
inpatients, predominantly at an early clinical grade. Because this was a single time-point
survey, the estimates reflect prevalence rather than incidence and the associations are crude;
routine, standardized site assessment (e.g., the VIP Scale) is recommended, and prospective
evaluation is needed to establish risk over the catheter lifetime.

Keywords
peripheral intravenous catheter-related phlebitis; VIP Scale; cross-sectional study; hospitalized patients; nursing care.
References
[1]
1. Fernández-Ruiz M, Carretero A, Díaz D, Fuentes C, González JI, García-Reyne A, et al. Google Scholar
[2]
Hospital-wide survey of the adequacy in the number of vascular catheters and catheter Google Scholar
[3]
lumens. J Hosp Med. 2014;9(1):35–41. Google Scholar
[4]
2. Bộ Y tế. Hướng dẫn thực hành kiểm soát nhiễm khuẩn trong các cơ sở khám bệnh, chữa Google Scholar
[5]
bệnh. Hà Nội: Nhà xuất bản Y học; 2017. Google Scholar
[6]
3. Hội Điều dưỡng Việt Nam. Hướng dẫn chăm sóc và sử dụng đường truyền tĩnh mạch ngoại Google Scholar
[7]
vi. Hà Nội: Hội Điều dưỡng Việt Nam; 2018. Google Scholar
[8]
4. Gorski LA, Hadaway L, Hagle ME, McGoldrick M, Orr M, Doellman D. Infusion therapy Google Scholar
[9]
standards of practice. J Infus Nurs. 2016;39(1S):S1–S159. Google Scholar
[10]
5. Maki DG, Kluger DM, Crnich CJ. The risk of bloodstream infection in adults with different Google Scholar
[11]
intravascular devices: a systematic review of 200 published prospective studies. Mayo Google Scholar
[12]
Clin Proc. 2006;81(9):1159–71. Google Scholar
[13]
6. Ray-Barruel G, Polit DF, Murfield JE, Rickard CM. Infusion phlebitis assessment Google Scholar
[14]
measures: a systematic review. J Eval Clin Pract. 2014;20(2):191–202. Google Scholar
[15]
7. Tagalakis V, Kahn SR, Libman M, Blostein M. The epidemiology of peripheral vein Google Scholar
[16]
infusion thrombophlebitis: a critical review. Am J Med. 2002;113(2):146–51. Google Scholar
[17]
8. Đặng Duy Quang, Phan Cảnh Chương, Lê Thị Hằng, Trần Thị Yến Linh, Dương Thị Google Scholar
[18]
Huỳnh Mai. Đánh giá tình trạng viêm tại chỗ trên người bệnh có đặt catheter tĩnh mạch Google Scholar
[19]
ngoại biên tại Bệnh viện Trung ương Huế. Tạp chí Y học lâm sàng Bệnh viện Trung ương Google Scholar
[20]
Huế. 2020;12(63). doi:10.38103/jcmhch.2020.63.10. Google Scholar
[21]
9. Jackson A. Infection control – a battle in vein: infusion phlebitis. Nurs Times. Google Scholar
[22]
1998;94(4):68–71. Google Scholar
[23]
10. Thái Đức Thuận Phong, Nguyễn Văn Thà, Trần Huy Giang, Bùi Hữu Minh Trí. Khảo sát Google Scholar
[24]
tỷ lệ viêm tại chỗ do đặt catheter tĩnh mạch ngoại biên tại khoa Hồi sức cấp cứu Bệnh viện Google Scholar
[25]
Tim mạch An Giang, 4–10/2011. Bệnh viện Tim mạch An Giang: Đề tài cơ sở; 2011. Google Scholar
[26]
tr.1–7. Google Scholar
[27]
11. Trần Thị Lý, Cao Thị Hồng Hà, Lê Văn Nhân. Đặc điểm viêm tĩnh mạch sau đặt catheter Google Scholar
[28]
tĩnh mạch ngoại vi trên người bệnh tại Bệnh viện Phổi Trung ương. Tạp chí Y học Việt Google Scholar
[29]
Nam. 2023;529(2):55–59. Google Scholar
[30]
12. Powell J, Tarnow KG, Perucca R. The relationship between peripheral intravenous Google Scholar
[31]
catheter indwell time and the incidence of phlebitis. J Infus Nurs. 2008;31(1):39–45. Google Scholar
[32]
13. Rickard CM, Webster J, Wallis MC, Marsh N, McGrail MR, French V, et al. Routine Google Scholar
[33]
versus clinically indicated replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters: a randomised Google Scholar
[34]
controlled equivalence trial. Lancet. 2012;380(9847):1066–74. Google Scholar
[35]
14. Cicolini G, Bonghi AP, Di Labio L, Di Mascio R. Position of peripheral venous cannulae Google Scholar
[36]
and the incidence of thrombophlebitis: an observational study. J Adv Nurs. Google Scholar
[37]
2009;65(6):1268–73. Google Scholar