Kevin Hugill1,†,‡
Matheus F. P. T. van Rens2*†,‡Angela Alderman3Lori Kaczmarek4,‡Carolyn Lund5,6Amy Paradis7
- 1Nursing and Midwifery Education, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar
- 2Neonatology Department, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands
- 3NICU, Carilion Children’s Hospital, Roanoke, VA, United State
- 4Adhezion Biomedical, LLC, Wyomissing, PA, United State
- 5NICU, UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital, Oakland, CA, United State
- 6School of Nursing, University of California, San Francisco, CA, United State
- 7NICU, CNS Doctors Medical Center, Modesto, CA, United State
Neonatal vascular access continues to pose challenges. Recent times have seen considerable innovations in practice and the design and manufacture of materials used to provide infusion-based therapies with the intent of reducing the incidence and severity of vascular access-related complications. However, despite these efforts, vascular access-related complication rates remain high in this patient group and research evidence remains incomplete. In neonates, a medical-grade formulation of cyanoacrylate adhesive is widely used to secure percutaneously inserted central venous catheters and is beginning to establish a role in supporting the effective securement of other devices, such as umbilical and peripheral intravenous catheters. This Perspective article considers issues specific to the removal of cyanoacrylate used to secure vascular access devices from neonatal skin before its bonding releases due to natural skin exfoliation processes. The aim of this information is to ensure the safe and effective removal of octyl-cyanoacrylate adhesive-secured vascular access catheters from neonatal skin and stimulate professional discussion.
Introduction
Over recent years, evidence-based practice innovations, such as care bundles, and intravenous (IV) team approaches have become firmly embedded in neonatal vascular access (VA) practice (1–4). These developments have taken place alongside technological improvements in the design and manufacture of VA devices and catheters for neonatal patient populations, with the intent of reducing VA-related complications (5, 6). Despite these advances, the incidence of VA-related complications remains unacceptably high, and dwell times for VA catheters, particularly peripheral IV catheters (PIVC) among this patient group, are generally considered to be suboptimal (6, 7).
Improving the securement of vascular catheters is a challenge for practitioners. Inadequate securement can lead to therapy failure and the unplanned removal of the catheter (1, 2). This can lead to infants being exposed to repeated painful VA procedures and critical delays in therapy. Adverse experiences like these have been associated with poorer outcomes for infants and their families (1, 6, 8–11).
Discussion
Medical grade cyanoacrylate tissue adhesives (TAs) are available in various chemical formulations, and these are typically based on octyl, butyl, or isobutyl esters. TAs form strong bonds between contact surfaces when exposed to ambient moisture. Individual products differ in their adhesive characteristics, breaking strength, and flexibility and are marketed under a range of brand names for specific clinical uses. TAs have established a role in traumatic and surgical wound closure (12, 13), and in securing vascular catheters (1, 2, 14). TAs formulated for use in VA are referred to as catheter securement cyanoacrylate adhesives (CSCAs) to differentiate them from other TAs (15). There are few absolute contraindications to CSCA use but some medical device composition incompatibilities, allergic sensitivity to components, and certain skin conditions are detailed in product indications for use (IFU) (1, 12–20).
Securing vascular access devices in neonates
Historically, neonatal clinicians have relied upon medical adhesive tapes and surgical sutures for catheter securement. Some types of tape pose a significant risk of medical adhesive-related tissue injury (MARSI) in this vulnerable patient population (16–18, 21–22) due to the interaction of intrinsic and extrinsic factors, including anatomical and physiological skin barrier immaturity, skin maturation processes, frequent invasive procedures, and therapeutic medical device use (16, 22).
Recently, engineered catheter securement devices and a CSCA have entered practice (1, 2, 15, 23–29). Initially, these approaches were limited to central vascular catheter (CVC) securement but are now recommended as an adjunct for peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) securement (1, 19, 28). Currently, only one product, marketed as SecurePortIV® (Adhezion Biomedical, Wyomissing PA, USA), has Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Certificate European (CE) approval for use in VA across all patient age groups and catheter types (1, 2, 20). There is an emerging body of empirical evidence from neonatal studies that this CSCA formulation is safe to use and can achieve the benefits reported in studies with other patient age groups (27–29).
The CSCA formulation used in VA has an established safety record, but MARSI remains a risk, particularly if the product is over-applied (16, 17, 21, 24). A characteristic of CSCA is that the adhesive bond forms more efficiently when thin layers are applied, as thicker layers can lead to less effective catheter securement. Consequently, it is essential to avoid overapplication; normally only 1–2 drops are required to achieve effective securement (Figure 1) (20).
Figure 1. Applying CSCA. Image courtesy of Adhezion Biomedical, LLC, Wyomissing, PA, USA, used with permission from Adhezion Biomedical.
Applied correctly, CSCAs are painless, aid insertion site closure, and promote hemostasis. They provide effective securement, reduce catheter migration, the risk of accidental removal, and decrease the need for frequent dressing changes (15, 23). Furthermore, CSCAs inhibit bacterial and fungal growth, with evidence supporting reductions in the risk of acquiring catheter-associated infection (1, 2, 5, 15, 24, 27–30). Standards and guidelines for catheter securement recommend that CSCA, used alone or combined with tapes, other securement devices, and the primary transparent dressing can reduce VA-related complications (1, 2, 19, 26, 31).
In practice, there are three common situations when early (before the natural separation of the adhesive from exfoliated skin cells) CSCA removal may be required. First, and most common, is to facilitate the repositioning of the CVC tip shortly after insertion of the catheter. Second, is elective catheter removal following the completion of therapy. Finally, the removal of a catheter after infusion-related complications, such as leakage, occlusion, peripheral IV infiltration/extravasation (PIVIE), or catheter dislodgment, is another unplanned removal situation.
Recommendations for best practice
General considerations
To ensure best practice overall, rather than in isolated patches, it is essential that all VA-related procedures are carried out with due attention to the wider context of patient care. Before beginning, inform the infant's parents about the procedure and the reason for doing it; this will provide reassurance, help to build more effective therapeutic relationships, and could potentially provide an opportunity for greater parental involvement (9–11, 32). To ensure patient safety and avoid the risk of harm, verify the correct patient, correct device and site, and rationale for catheter removal (33). During catheter removal, adhere to routine infection control and personal protective equipment (PPE) practices to ensure personal and patient safety (e.g., 34–37).
A key element of practice is to ensure that neurodevelopmentally appropriate practices are consistently and universally implemented (10, 11). For example, practitioners should consider individual intrinsic patient characteristics and extrinsic risks before attempting CSCA removal while ensuring supportive thermoregulation throughout. Additionally, individual behavioral cues, assessment of sleep/wake patterns, the relationship of this activity to other care activities or painful procedures, and the degree of clinical urgency should be considered when determining when it is best to remove a catheter (10).
Ensuring that comfort measures are in place throughout is essential for minimizing pain experiences. Recall the reason for the unplanned/early removal of the catheter (e.g., phlebitis or PIVIE) and consider whether this might be a source of pain and discomfort during removal. Consider whether an assistant (potentially an adequately prepared parent) is required to aid in safe removal, support the infant, and provide comfort measures in accordance with local protocol/guidance.
Evidence from numerous sources suggests that following these general considerations can reduce levels of medical error and avoidable patient harm, reduce costs and complaints, enhance the patient and family experience, and ensure that patients and families receive optimal individualized care that supports better short- and long-term developmental outcomes (8–11, 32–38).
Removing cyanoacrylate tissue adhesives from the skin
TAs naturally begin to lose their adhesion 5–7 days following application, as the surface of the skin naturally regenerates and exfoliates. In neonates, the skin undergoes post-birth maturation processes, and reapplication of CSCA around the site it was originally applied to is recommended with any dressing change to ensure ongoing benefits. However, it remains important to avoid overapplication (20).
Pre-CSCA use precautions
Neonates are at risk from numerous iatrogenic complications from VA procedures. Utilizing mnemonics, such as the “5Rs for VA” or “PIV5rights” (27, 39), before insertion can reduce harm. In addition, formal skin condition scoring using a validated tool, e.g., the Braden QD or Neonatal Skin Condition Score (NSCS) (40–42), can be useful for identifying risks and aiding objective assessment and documentation.
Preventing MARSI begins before the application of medical adhesive. Preventative strategies include appropriate adhesive selection for the intended purpose and the application of non-alcoholic silicone skin barrier preparations. Evidence suggests that the preapplication of skin barrier products (e.g., CavilonTM No Sting Skin Barrier Film, 3M Saint Paul, MN, USA.) protects the skin from MARSI and epidermal stripping. It should be noted that while authoritative guidance supports their use (e.g., 42, 43) most skin barrier product use is “off-label” in neonates.
Removing CSCA
Generally, in neonates, gentle rolling manipulation of the CSCA plaque in a horizontal direction avoiding vertical lifting is all that is required to aid the removal of the adhesive and catheter. Unless it is essential for ongoing care and management of the VA catheter, it is not necessary to remove all the CSCA residue. It is sufficient to remove enough to facilitate the safe removal of the catheter and any remaining CSCA will naturally separate in time; this reduces the risk of MARSI (16–18, 21).
CSCA can be removed before it naturally separates by applying adhesive removers (20). However, formulations containing acetone, alcohol, or latex can be harmful for neonates or can damage some types of catheters [alcohol softens polyurethane (PUR)]. In general, adhesive removers containing alcohol or acetone are best avoided in neonates. This is to protect against further skin damage and avoid possible toxicities from the absorption of ingredients through the skin (16). Numerous branded skin-compatible formulations, such as Acetone Free Adhesive Remover Pads (Medline Industries Northfield lL, USA), or silicone-based adhesive removers, such as Adapt™ Medical Adhesive Remover (Hollister Incorporated, Libertyville IL, USA) and Esenta™ Adhesive Remover and Sensicare™ Sting-Free Adhesive Releaser (both, Convatec Incorporated Bridgewater NJ, USA), are available and when used with care can facilitate easier CSCA removal in difficult cases. If adhesive removers are used then interventions to limit exposure, such as avoiding contaminating adjacent skin and pooling underneath the infant and promptly removing any residue, should be implemented.
Documentation
Adhere to the principles of proper documentation practices and institution requirements. This will ensure compliance with the expectations of professional practice and that the care provided to the patient and family is accurately recorded (33). The documentation includes the reason for catheter removal, date and time of removal, skin and catheter site condition assessment and any recommendations for ongoing care and observation, effectiveness of comfort interventions, and education to the parents. Document adverse outcomes using incident reporting as per institution guidelines.
Conclusions
Neonatal VA is a complex undertaking, one in which continual balancing and rebalancing of relative risks and benefits is required to optimize therapy and minimize harm. Opening discussion and debate about VA practice is essential for improving patient outcomes. The motivation for this article emerged from a concern that in reducing one aspect of risk, i.e., catheter dislodgment from better catheter securement, we mitigate risk elsewhere.
This article summarizes the key points (Box 1) for safe CSCA removal and contributes to knowledge in several ways. First, it provokes discussion around an increasingly common feature of everyday practice (the use of CSCA with VA) by highlighting the current state of evidence supporting practice. Second, it draws attention to some of the significant gaps in the understanding of the risks associated with CSCA use with neonatal patients.
BOX 1. Key points for ensuring safe and effective CSCA removal.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.
Author contributions
Both KH and MR contributed equally to the conceptualization and led the collaboration and preparation of the manuscript and share joint equal first authorship for this work. AA, LK, CL, and AP contributed equally to revising the manuscript for important intellectual content and performed final proofreading. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Conflict of interest
LK is an employee of Adhezion Biomedical, LLC.
The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Gorski LA, Hadaway L, Hagle ME, Broadhurst D, Clare S, Kleidon T, et al. Infusion therapy standards of practice. (8th ed.). J Infus Nurs. (2021) 44(1S Suppl 1):S1–224. doi: 10.1097/NAN.0000000000000396
2. Sharpe EL, Curry S, Mason-Wyckoff M. Peripherally inserted central catheters: Guideline for practice. (4th ed.). Chicago (IL): National Association of Neonatal Nurses (2022). Available at: https://nann.mycrowdwisdom.com/cw/course-details?entryId=10902832 (Accessed May 24, 2023).
3. Bayoumi MAA, Van Rens MFP, Chandra P, Francia ALV, D'Souza S, George M, et al. Effect of implementing an epicutaneo-caval catheter team in neonatal intensive care unit. J Vasc Access. (2020) 22(2):243–53. doi: 10.1177/1129729820928182
4. van Rens M, Hugill K, Gaffari MAK, Francia AV, Ramkumar T, Garcia KLP, et al. Outcomes of establishing a neonatal peripheral vascular access team. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. (2021) 0:F1. doi: 10.1136/fetalneonatal-2021-322764
5. van Rens MF, Hugill K, Mahmah MA, Francia AL, van Loon FH. Effect of peripheral intravenous catheter type and material on therapy failure in a neonatal population. J Vasc Access. (2022):11297298221080071. doi: 10.1177/11297298221080071. [Epub ahead of print]35196909
6. van Rens M, Hugill K, Mahmah MA, Bayoumi M, Francia ALV, Garcia KLP, et al. Evaluation of unmodifiable and potentially modifiable factors affecting peripheral intravenous device-related complications in neonates: a retrospective observational study. BMJ Open. (2021) 11(9):e047788. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047788
7. Helm RE, Klausner JD, Klemperer JD, Flint M, Huang E. Accepted but unacceptable: peripheral iv catheter failure. J Inf Nurs. (2015) 38(3):189–203. doi: 10.1097/NAN.0000000000000100
8. Campbell-Yeo M, Eriksson M, Benoit B. Assessment and management of pain in preterm infants: a practice update. Children (Basel). (2022) 9(2):244. doi: 10.3390/children9020244
9. Gallagher K, Shaw C, Aladangady N, Marlow N. Parental experience of interaction with healthcare professionals during their infant’s stay in the neonatal intensive care unit. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. (2018) 103:F343–8. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2016-312278
10. Altimier L, Phillips R. The neonatal integrative developmental care model: advanced clinical applications of the seven core measures for neuroprotective family-centered developmental care. Newborn Infant Nurs Rev. (2016) 16:230–44. doi: 10.1053/j.nainr.2016.09.030
11. British Association of Perinatal Medicine, (BAPM). Family integrated care a framework for practice. London: BAPM (2021).
12. Farion KJ, Russell KF, Osmond MH, Hartling L, Klassen TP, Durec T, et al. Tissue adhesives for traumatic lacerations in children and adults. Cochrane Database Sys Rev. (2002) 3:CD003326. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003326
13. Dumville JC, Coulthard P, Worthington HV, Riley P, Patel N, Darcey J, et al. Tissue adhesives for closure of surgical incisions. Cochrane Database Sys Rev. (2014) 11:CD004287. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004287.pub4
14. Ullman AJ, Cooke ML, Mitchell M, Lin F, New K, Long DA, et al. Dressings and securement devices for central venous catheters (CVC). Cochrane Database Sys Rev. (2015) 9:CD010367. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010367
15. Zhang S, Lingle BS, Phelps S. A revolutionary, proven solution to vascular access concerns: a review of the advantageous properties and benefits of catheter securement cyanoacrylate adhesives. J Inf Nurs. (2022) 45(3):154–64. doi: 10.1097/NAN.0000000000000467
16. Lund C. Medical adhesives in the NICU. Newborn Inf Nurs Rev. (2014) 14(4):160–5. doi: 10.1053/j.nainr.2014.10.001
17. Fumarola S, Allaway R, Callaghan R, Collier M, Downie F, Geraghty J, et al. Overlooked and underestimated: medical adhesive-related skin injuries. J Wound Care. (2020) 29(Sup3c):S1–24. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2020.29.sup3c.s1
18. de Oliveira MJ, Santos AS, Oliveira AJF, Costa ACL, Regne GRS, da Trindade RE, et al. Medical adhesive-related skin injuries in the neonatology department of a teaching hospital. Nurs Crit Care. (2022) 27(4):583–8. doi: 10.1111/nicc.12621
19. Pittiruti M, Van Boxtel T, Scoppettuolo G, Carr P, Konstantinou E, Ortiz Miluy G, et al. European Recommendations on the proper indication and use of peripheral venous access devices (the ERPIUP consensus): a WoCoVA project. J Vasc Access. (2023) 24(1):165–82. doi: 10.1177/11297298211023274
20. Adhezion Biomedical, LLC. SecurePortIV: Indication for Use (IFU). SPI-IFU01-1903. June 2019. Available at: www.SPIVTraining.com (Accessed May 24, 2023).
21. Jani P, Mishra U, Buchmayer J, Maheshwari R, D’Cruz D, Walker K, et al. Global variation in skin injuries and skincare practices in extremely preterm infants. World J Pediatr. (2022) 3:1–19. doi: 10.1007/s12519-022-00625-2
22. Oranges T, Dini V, Romanelli M. Skin physiology of the neonate and infant: clinical implications. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). (2015) 4(10):587–95. doi: 10.1089/wound.2015.0642
24. Pittiruti M, Annetta MG, Marche B, D'Andrea V, Scoppettuolo G. Ten years of clinical experience with cyanoacrylate glue for venous access in a 1300-bed university hospital. Br J Nurs. (2022) 31(8):S4–13. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2022.31.8.S4
25. Kleidon TM, Ullman AJ, Gibson V, Chaseling B, Schoutrop J, Mihala G, et al. A pilot randomized controlled trial of novel dressing and securement techniques in 101 pediatric patients. J Vasc Int Radiol. (2017) 28(11):1548–56. e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2017.07.012
26. D'Andrea V, Pezza L, Barone G, Prontera G, Pittiruti M, Vento G. Use of cyanoacrylate glue for the sutureless securement of epicutaneo-caval catheters in neonates. J Vasc Access. (2022) 23(5):801–4. doi: 10.1177/11297298211008103
27. van Rens M, Abdelghafar MA, Nimeri N, Spencer TR, Hugill K, Francia ALV, et al. Cyanoacrylate securement in neonatal PICC use, a 4-year observational study. Adv Neonatal Care. (2021) 22(3):270–9. doi: 10.1097/ANC.0000000000000963
28. van Rens M, Spencer TR, Hugill K, Francia AL, van Loon FH, Bayoumi MA. Octyl-butyl-cyanoacrylate glue for securement of peripheral intravenous catheters: a retrospective observational study in the neonatal population. J Vasc Access. (2023) 16:11297298231154629. doi: 10.1177/11297298231154629
29. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, (NICE). SecurePort IV tissue adhesive for use with percutaneous catheters. Medtech innovation briefing, 15 March 2022. Available at: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/mib288 (Accessed May 24, 2023).
30. Prince D, Kohan K, Solanki Z, Mastej J, Prince D, Varughese R, et al. Immobilization and death of bacteria by Flora seal® microbial sealant. Int J Pharm Sci Invention. (2017) 6(6):45–9.
31. Ullman AJ, Kleidon TM, Gibson V, McBride CA, Mihala G, Cooke M, et al. Innovative dressing and securement of tunneled central venous access devices in pediatrics: a pilot randomized controlled trial. BMC Cancer. (2017) 17(1):595. doi: 10.1186/s12885-017-3606-9
32. Skene C, Gerrish K, Price F, Pilling E, Bayliss P, Gillespie S. Developing family-centred care in a neonatal intensive care unit: an action research study. Intens Crit Care Nurs. (2019) 50:54–62. doi: 10.1016/j.iccn.2018.05.006
33. Joint Commission International, (JCI). JCI Accreditation standards for hospitals. (7th ed.). Oakbrook Terrace: JCI (2020).
34. Loveday HP, Wilson JA, Pratt RJ, Golsorkhi M, Tingle A, Bak A, et al. Epic3: national evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections in NHS hospitals in England. J Hosp Infect. (2014) 86(Suppl 1):S1–70. doi: 10.1016/S0195-6701(13)60012-2
35. NHS England. National infection prevention and control manual for England, V2.4. London: NHS England (2023).
36. NHS National Services Scotland. National infection prevention and control manual. Available at: https://www.nipcm.hps.scot.nhs.uk/ (Accessed May 24, 2023).
37. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC’s core infection prevention and control practices for safe healthcare delivery in all settings. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/core-practices/index.html (Accessed May 24, 2023).
38. Lago P, Garetti E, Merazzi D, Pieragostini L, Ancora G, Pirelli A, et al. Guidelines for procedural pain in the newborn. Acta Paediatr. (2009) 98(6):932–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2009.01291.x
39. Steere L, Ficara C, Davis M, Moureau N. Reaching one peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) per patient visit with lean multimodal strategy: the PIV5Rights TM bundle. JAVA. (2019) 24(3):31–43. doi: 10.2309/j.java.2019.003.004
40. Lund CH, Osborne JW. Validity and reliability of the neonatal skin condition score. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. (2004) 33(3):320–7. doi: 10.1177/0884217504265174
41. Ashworth C, Briggs L. Design and implementation of a neonatal tissue viability assessment tool on the newborn intensive care unit. Infant. (2011) 7(6):191–4.
42. Brandon D, Hill CM, Heimall L, Lund CH, Kuller J, McEwan T, et al. Neonatal skin care: evidence based clinical practice guideline. (4th ed. Washington, DC: AWHONN (2018).
Keywords: neonate, complications, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), vascular catheters, tissue adhesives cyanoacrylate, medical adhesive-related skin injury (MARSI)
Citation: Hugill K, van Rens MFPT, Alderman A, Kaczmarek L, Lund C and Paradis A (2023) Safe and effective removal of cyanoacrylate vascular access catheter securement adhesive in neonates. Front. Pediatr. 11:1237648. doi: 10.3389/fped.2023.1237648
Received: 9 June 2023; Accepted: 26 July 2023;
Published: 25 August 2023.
Edited by:
Fiammetta Piersigilli, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, BelgiumReviewed by:
Timothy R. Spencer, Global Vascular Access, LLC, United States© 2023 Hugill, van Rens, Alderman, Kaczmarek, Lund and Paradis. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Matheus F. P. T. van Rens cm9sYW5kdmFucmVuc0BpY2xvdWQuY29t
†These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship
‡ORCID Kevin Hugill orcid.org/0000-0002-3096-9635 Matheus F. P. T. van Rens orcid.org/0000-0001-9359-0895 Lori Kaczmarek orcid.org/0000-0001-6462-5198