Clinical Guideline: Catheter-Associated Skin Injury

Prevention, Assessment, and Management in Vascular Access Care

1. Introduction and Scope

This clinical guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the prevention, identification, and management of catheter-associated skin injury (CASI) in patients with peripheral and central vascular access devices. The guidance applies across clinical settings including acute care, critical care, oncology, neonatology, and ambulatory infusion services.

Catheter-associated skin injury represents a significant clinical concern that increases patient discomfort, elevates healthcare costs, delays treatment, and may necessitate premature device removal and replacement. Implementing standardized prevention and management protocols is essential for optimizing patient outcomes and preserving vascular access.

2. Definitions and Classification

2.1 Catheter-Associated Skin Injury (CASI)

Catheter-associated skin injury encompasses any abnormality of the skin occurring at a peripheral or central vascular access device site. This includes erythema, vesicles, bullae, erosion, or skin tears observed in the area of the device dressing or securement device that remains visible for 30 minutes or more following dressing or securement removal. CASI excludes skin conditions arising from unrelated sources such as eczema, autoimmune disorders, or systemic medication adverse events.

2.2 Medical Adhesive-Related Skin Injury (MARSI)

Medical adhesive-related skin injury specifically refers to erythema or cutaneous abnormalities—including vesicles, bullae, erosion, or skin tears—that persist for 30 minutes or more after adhesive removal. This subcategory of CASI addresses injuries directly attributable to adhesive products used in vascular access management.

2.3 Classification of Skin Injury Types

Erythema presents as red discoloration of the skin that may be painful or pruritic. Clinical recognition can be challenging in patients with darker skin pigmentation, requiring enhanced assessment techniques and attention to changes in skin texture or temperature.

Allergic Contact Dermatitis (ACD) represents a cell-mediated immune response occurring in the area of catheter or product contact. The affected area corresponds precisely to the zone of exposure. Clinical presentation includes erythema, vesicles, and pruritic dermatitis, with symptoms typically persisting up to one week.

Irritant Contact Dermatitis (ICD) involves non-immunological skin injury confined to the area of exposure. Presentation includes erythema, edema, and vesicles. Unlike allergic contact dermatitis, symptoms typically resolve quickly once the irritating exposure is eliminated.

Tension Injury or Blister results from separation of the epidermis from the dermis caused by tension or shear forces. Severe edema significantly potentiates the risk of this injury type.

Skin Stripping involves removal of one or more layers of the stratum corneum, commonly resulting from adhesive removal or excessive friction during site cleansing.

Maceration develops from prolonged moisture exposure and presents as pale, white, grey, or wrinkled skin. Macerated skin demonstrates increased permeability and heightened susceptibility to further injury.

Skin Tear describes separation of the epidermis from the dermis due to shear or friction forces and may be partial or full thickness in nature.

Pressure Injury involves damage to superficial and potentially deeper tissue structures resulting from prolonged pressure at the device site.

Folliculitis appears as small, inflamed, elevated pustules at hair follicles, frequently caused by trapped microorganisms or damage from shaving.

3. Risk Assessment and Patient Factors

3.1 Comprehensive Risk Evaluation

Effective prevention of catheter-associated skin injury begins with thorough assessment of individual patient risk factors. Risk evaluation should inform decisions regarding device selection, insertion site, product choices, and monitoring frequency.

3.2 Patient Population Risk Factors

Clinical evidence identifies several patient populations at elevated risk for CASI. Neonates and premature infants demonstrate particular vulnerability due to immature skin barrier function, with extremely low-birthweight and low-birthweight infants requiring specialized protocols.^[1,31] Elderly patients face increased risk due to age-related changes in skin integrity and fragility.

Patients receiving oncology treatment, particularly those undergoing chemotherapy, experience heightened risk due to treatment-related skin toxicity and immunocompromise.^[53,42] Additional high-risk populations include critically ill patients in intensive care settings, patients with compromised immune function, and those with pre-existing dermatological conditions.^[14,21]

Patients with peripheral edema or anasarca face elevated risk of tension injuries and dressing complications. Those with coagulopathies or receiving anticoagulation therapy may develop hematomas that promote subsequent skin injury. Patients with documented allergies or sensitivities to adhesives, antiseptics, or catheter materials require alternative product selection to prevent injury.

Nutritional status and hydration significantly influence skin integrity. Malnourished or dehydrated patients demonstrate compromised wound healing capacity and reduced skin resilience.^[27,8]

3.3 Device and Treatment-Related Factors

The type of vascular access device, anticipated dwell time, and characteristics of prescribed infusates contribute to CASI risk. Patients requiring vesicant or irritant infusions, multiple infusion therapies, or extended treatment courses warrant enhanced monitoring protocols.

4. Prevention Strategies

4.1 Site Selection and Device Planning

Prevention of catheter-associated skin injury begins with thoughtful device and site selection. Clinicians should avoid inserting vascular access devices into areas of pre-existing skin injury, scarring, or dermatological conditions.^[35,33]

Utilization of vascular visualization technology during insertion reduces vascular trauma, minimizing bruising and hematoma formation that may promote subsequent skin injury.^[45] For patients receiving chemotherapy with high skin toxicity risk, implanted ports may offer advantages over peripherally inserted devices.^[48]

Prior to device placement, clinicians should obtain a thorough patient history regarding previous CASI episodes and documented allergies to adhesives, antiseptics, or catheter materials. This information guides individualized product selection and preventive strategies.^[27,41,45]

4.2 Hair Removal

When hair removal at the insertion site is necessary, clipping or trimming is recommended rather than shaving. Shaving creates micro-abrasions that increase risk of folliculitis and infection.^[27]

4.3 Skin Antisepsis

The preferred skin antiseptic agent for vascular access procedures is alcohol-based chlorhexidine solution. Selection of antiseptic products should balance effective antimicrobial action with minimization of skin irritation and damage.

Clinical teams should carefully review product information, particularly for high-risk patients, as some antiseptic products are supplied in non-sterile form and may contain contaminants.^[46] When skin irritation is a concern, lower concentrations of antiseptic or aqueous solutions may be substituted. In cases of severe skin conditions, sterile saline may be used as an alternative.

Complete drying of antiseptic solution prior to dressing application is essential to reduce risk of maceration and skin irritation. Premature dressing application over wet antiseptic promotes moisture-related injury and may compromise adhesive integrity.

Chlorhexidine Considerations: True allergy to chlorhexidine is uncommon but has been documented, including reports of anaphylaxis.^[12] Clinicians should note that patient histories may record skin irritation as an allergy, potentially limiting antiseptic options unnecessarily. Patch testing can help differentiate true allergy from irritant reactions.^[27,8]

Neonatal Populations: The neonatal population, particularly premature and low-birthweight infants, faces well-documented risk of skin injury from chlorhexidine use.^[32] Many neonatal intensive care units employ weight and gestational age criteria to guide antiseptic selection. Tincture of iodine is contraindicated in neonates due to absorption risk and potential thyroid toxicity.

Evidence remains insufficient to identify optimal skin antisepsis protocols for neonates, especially extremely low-birthweight infants. Current recommendations favor using the lowest effective chlorhexidine concentration (less than 1%), avoiding alcohol-based preparations in high-risk infants, and preferring aqueous chlorhexidine formulations.^[31,5,2,38] Sodium hypochlorite has demonstrated minimal skin irritation in neonatal populations and represents an alternative option.^[32,10]

4.4 Skin Barrier Application

Application of an alcohol-free skin barrier product enhances protection for the skin surrounding the vascular access device insertion site. Skin barriers provide a physical protective layer for the epidermis against irritants and reduce adhesive-related trauma during dressing changes. A variety of products are available with variable effectiveness; clinicians should follow manufacturer instructions and ensure compatibility with the antiseptic solution being used.^[47,7,36] Complete drying of the barrier product is required before proceeding with dressing application.

4.5 Dressing Selection and Application

Vascular access device dressings are typically composed of polyurethane film with pressure-sensitive acrylate adhesive backing. Selection should consider breathability, stretch, conformity, adhesive characteristics, and compatibility with other products in use.^[53,41,27]

Application Technique: Proper dressing application involves applying firm, gentle pressure while eliminating tension or stretch on the dressing material. Clinicians should limit or avoid substances that increase dressing adhesion such as tackifiers or bonding agents. Circumferential dressing coverage should be avoided as it may contribute to pressure injury.^[35,41,27]

Chlorhexidine-Impregnated Dressings: Chlorhexidine gluconate-containing dressings should be used to prevent central line-associated bloodstream infections in patients greater than 2 months of age with short-term central vascular access devices, including oncology patients, unless contraindicated by sensitivity or allergy to chlorhexidine.^[53,35,17]

The risks and benefits of chlorhexidine-impregnated dressings require careful evaluation in patients with complicated skin disorders such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome, graft-versus-host disease, burns, or anasarca, as well as in immunocompromised patients and infants.^[9,39,20]

Alternative Dressing Options: For challenging clinical situations, alternative dressing approaches may be warranted, including dressings that do not contain patient-specific allergens, gauze-only coverage for severe exfoliative dermatitis, silicone-based dressings, silver ion alginate antibacterial dressings to reduce folliculitis risk, hydrocolloid dressings for increased absorption, absorbent clear acrylic dressings, or hemostatic dressings for sites with bleeding.^[53,6,49,29]

When non-transparent dressings such as gauze are clinically indicated, expert consultation with wound care specialists, vascular access teams, or infectious disease specialists may inform optimal assessment frequency and dressing change intervals.

4.6 Dressing Change Intervals

Dressings should be changed promptly when soiled, when integrity is compromised, or upon initial signs or symptoms of skin impairment, following manufacturer guidelines. The risks and benefits of extended dressing change intervals for central vascular access devices must be weighed against increased infection risk in certain populations.^[39,11]

4.7 Securement Methods

Selection of dressing and securement methods should aim to reduce the frequency of dressing changes while incorporating patient characteristics, application area, anticipated dwell time, and prescribed therapy considerations.^{[41,27,17,36]}

Liquid Adhesives: Gum mastic liquid adhesive compatible with antiseptic and dressing products may be used when enhanced dressing adherence is required.^[45,36,13] Cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive has demonstrated improved hemostasis, reducing localized bleeding at insertion sites and decreasing the need for early dressing changes.^[15,50] When liquid adhesives are used, application of skin barrier film prior to adhesive application and correct removal technique are essential to prevent skin injury from enhanced bonding.^[41,27,6]

Securement Alternatives: Various securement options may reduce CASI risk, including subcutaneous anchor securement systems, integrated securement dressings, silicone splinting for infants, and central line vests.^[22,16,28]

Medical Adhesive Tape: When evaluating medical adhesive tape for additional securement or tubing anchoring, clinicians should consider skin stripping risk. Rubber-backed tapes are associated with increased skin stripping compared to other formulations.^[14] Ongoing research into temperature-sensitive and photo-thermal release adhesive prototypes shows promise for developing high-adhesion tapes with safer removal properties.^[40,24]

4.8 Dressing and Securement Removal

Proper removal technique is critical for preventing skin injury. The product should be kept horizontal to the skin surface during removal, as vertical pulling significantly increases peel force. The skin should be supported at the peel line throughout the removal process.^{[31,41,27,18]}

Medical adhesive remover should be used according to manufacturer instructions while maintaining aseptic non-touch technique. Additional precautions are warranted for patients at high risk for skin injury. Sterile saline may assist with removal in high-risk patients.^{[53,31,41,27,3,36,13]}

4.9 Product Integrity and Single-Patient Use

The integrity of all products should be verified prior to use. Single-patient use should be maintained for all vascular access supplies.^[27,6]

4.10 Supportive Measures

Optimal skin health is supported by adequate hydration and nutrition. Patients with compromised nutritional status or dehydration may benefit from nutritional consultation and optimization as part of a comprehensive CASI prevention strategy.^[27,23,8]

4.11 Education

Staff education on vascular access site care, early recognition of skin injury, and prompt management of CASI is essential. Education should address proper antiseptic application, atraumatic dressing application, and safe removal techniques. Patients and caregivers, particularly parents of pediatric patients, should also receive education appropriate to their level of involvement in care.^{[53,35,41,27,5,8,17]}

4.12 Multidisciplinary Collaboration

For high-risk patients, multidisciplinary collaboration involving dermatology and wound care specialists should be considered.^{[53,27,23,45,49,13]}

4.13 Timely Device Removal

Vascular access devices should be removed as soon as they are no longer clinically indicated to prevent skin injury associated with prolonged dwell time.^[3,19]

5. Assessment and Monitoring

5.1 Routine Assessment

The vascular access device site, dressing, and securement status should be routinely assessed for signs and symptoms of skin injury. Assessment should include evaluation of skin texture, color, uniformity of appearance, and integrity using adequate lighting. Documented abnormalities should include specific findings such as vesicles, exudate, erythema, warmth, edema, or pressure-related injury.^{[53,27,25,33,14,8,37]}

5.2 Severity Assessment

When skin injury is identified, severity assessment determines the impact on the vascular access device, the treatment regimen, and required management interventions.^[27]

For premature infants exhibiting signs of chemical burn or irritation, immediate action is required to remove the potential source of irritation. Prompt treatment and specialist consultation with dermatology and surgery should be initiated as indicated.^[32]

5.3 Pain Assessment

Pain related to skin injury should be assessed and treated as indicated. Management options include analgesics, anti-inflammatory agents, or cool compresses.^[25,23,8,9]

5.4 Pruritus Evaluation

Pruritus associated with vascular access devices should be assessed. Treatment with antihistamines or steroids may be indicated. Clinicians should be aware that pruritus is common in certain populations, particularly patients with end-stage renal disease, which may mask CASI or other serious conditions.^[8,19]

5.5 Differential Diagnosis

Assessment should rule out other conditions that may mimic or accompany CASI, including infiltration, extravasation, thrombophlebitis, and skin conditions related to other body regions such as eczema, impetigo, cellulitis, erysipelas, or drug eruptions. Wound care or dermatology consultation should be obtained as indicated.^[8]

Signs of localized or systemic infection, including fungal infection such as candidiasis presenting as whitish or raised red areas unresponsive to other treatment, should be assessed. Adhesives and resultant skin injury may promote bacterial overgrowth.^{[41,27,23,4,34,13]}

5.6 Product-Related Factors

When abnormalities are noted, dressing, antiseptic, and securement-related factors should be ruled out. Common contributing factors include failure to allow products to fully dry, excessively frequent dressing changes, and improper removal technique.^[27,6,8]

5.7 Allergy and Sensitivity Monitoring

Early monitoring and intervention are essential when allergy or sensitivity to a product is suspected. Alternative products for cleansing, dressing, and securement should be identified promptly.^[41,45,12]

5.8 Assessment Tool Development

Further validation of CASI assessment resources is needed to establish comprehensive, standardized skin assessment tools for vascular access care.^[25,8]

6. Management of Catheter-Associated Skin Injury

6.1 General Principles

Practice variation in CASI management remains significant, and further research is needed to establish evidence-based protocols. The following interventions are recommended based on current evidence.^{[53,27,23,45,6,30,4,8,26]}

6.2 Recommended Interventions

Exposure Elimination: Subsequent exposure to products suspected of causing CASI should be avoided.

Antiseptic Modification: Consider changing to a different antiseptic product or reducing the concentration when antiseptic-related injury is suspected.

Dressing Alternatives: Dressing alternatives should be considered, balancing the need for adequate adhesion and securement against prevention of further skin damage during removal. The risks of insufficient adhesion leading to device loss must be weighed against skin protection needs.

Securement Modifications: Securement alternatives that reduce adhesive use should be considered. When using dressing systems with limited securement properties, additional attention to catheter securement and site protection is required, and monitoring frequency should be increased.

Allergy Evaluation: When new allergy is suspected, patch testing should be performed. Referral for formal allergy testing may be indicated.^[26]

Adhesive Remover: If not already in use, medical adhesive remover should be incorporated into the dressing change protocol.

6.3 Skin Tear Management

When skin tears with viable skin flaps are present, the skin flap edges should be realigned prior to dressing application.^[8,18]

Transparent semi-permeable membrane dressings, adhesive strips, and hydrocolloid dressings should be avoided for skin tear management due to risk of epidermal stripping if not removed properly.

When skin damage or drainage is not in the immediate area of the vascular access device insertion site, the wound and exudate should be isolated from the exit site. An absorbent dressing should be applied over the injury, with the transparent dressing then applied over the insertion site. Published protocols indicate that silicone mesh with transparent semi-permeable membrane dressing may be used when the dressing is applied over a healthy skin border.^[18]

6.4 Corticosteroid Therapy

When inflammation and pruritus at the site do not improve with initial interventions, short-term use of topical low-to-moderate potency corticosteroid may be considered. The corticosteroid should not be applied directly on the vascular access device insertion site, as these agents are non-sterile. Culture of the insertion site should be considered if infection is suspected.^[8]

6.5 Escalation of Care

If skin condition does not improve within 3 to 7 days or deteriorates despite the above measures, expert consultation should be obtained from wound care specialists or dermatology.^[27,8,9]

6.6 Device Removal Consideration

Vascular access device removal should be considered when skin injury is severe or unresponsive to treatment. The plan for ongoing vascular access needs should be reassessed prior to removal.^[9]

6.7 Patient and Caregiver Education

Patients and caregivers should understand the strategies in place to mitigate further skin injury and the specific products that should be avoided to prevent future recurrence.^[41,8]

7. Quality Improvement

Quality improvement measures should be employed to monitor and address the incidence of catheter-associated skin injury. Ongoing monitoring of current evidence should inform exploration of new prevention and management options.^[27,13]

8. References

1. August DL, Kandasamy Y, Ray R, Lindsay D, New K. Fresh perspectives on hospital-acquired neonatal skin injury period prevalence from a multicenter study: length of stay, acuity, and incomplete course of antenatal steroids. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2021;35(3):275-283. doi:10.1097/JPN.0000000000000513

2. Bagheri I, Fallah B, Dadgari A, Farahani A, Salmani N. A literature review of selection of appropriate antiseptics when inserting intravenous catheters in premature infants: the challenge in neonatal intensive care unit. J Clin Neonatol. 2020;9(3):162-167. doi:10.4103/jcn.JCN_135_19

3. Barton A. Medical adhesive-related skin injuries associated with vascular access: minimising risk with Appeel Sterile. Br J Nurs. 2020;29(8):S20-S27. doi:10.12968/bjon.2020.29.8.S20

4. Barton A. Prevention of medical adhesive-related skin injury (MARSI) during vascular access. Br J Nurs. 2021;30:1-8. doi:10.12968/bjon.2021.30.Sup2.1

5. Beekman K, Steward D. Chlorhexidine gluconate utilization for infection prevention in the NICU: a survey of current practice. Adv Neonatal Care. 2020;20(1):38-47. doi:10.1097/ANC.0000000000000658

6. Bernatchez SF, Bichel J. The science of skin: measuring damage and assessing risk. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2023;12(4):187-204. doi:10.1089/wound.2022.0021

7. Bodkhe RB, Shrestha SB, Unertl K, Fetzik J, McNulty AK. Comparing the physical performance of liquid barrier films. Skin Res Technol. 2021;27(5):891-895. doi:10.1111/srt.13038

8. Broadhurst D, Moureau N, Ullman AJ. Management of central venous access device-associated skin impairment: an evidence-based algorithm. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2017;44(3):211-220. doi:10.1097/WON.0000000000000322

9. Canadian Vascular Access Association. Canadian Vascular Access and Infusion Therapy Guidelines. Pappin Communications; 2019.

10. Ciccia M, Chakrokh R, Molinazzi D, Zanni A, Farruggia P, Sandri F. Skin antisepsis with 0.05% sodium hypochlorite before central venous catheter insertion in neonates: a 2-year single-center experience. Am J Infect Control. 2018;46(2):169-172. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2017.08.012

11. de Campos Pereira Silveira RC, dos Reis PED, Ferreira EB, Braga FTMM, Galvão CM, Clark AM. Dressings for the central venous catheter to prevent infection in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Support Care Cancer. 2020;28(2):425-438. doi:10.1007/s00520-019-05065-9

12. Devinck A, Bauters T, Lapeere H, Willems L. Anaphylaxis related to disinfection with chlorhexidine in a teenager treated for cancer. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2021;27(1):227-231. doi:10.1177/1078155220925531

13. DeVries M, Sarbenoff J, Scott N, Wickert M, Hayes LM. Improving vascular access dressing integrity in the acute care setting: a quality improvement project. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2021;48(5):383-388. doi:10.1097/WON.0000000000000787

14. Frota OP, Pinho JN, Ferreira-Júnior MA, Sarti ECFB, Paula FM, Ferreira DN. Incidence and risk factors for medical adhesive-related skin injury in catheters of critically ill patients—a prospective cohort study. Aust Crit Care. 2023;S1036-7314(23):00032-2. doi:10.1016/j.aucc.2023.02.005

15. Gilardi E, Piano A, Chellini P, et al. Reduction of bacterial colonization at the exit site of peripherally inserted central catheters: a comparison between chlorhexidine-releasing sponge dressings and cyano-acrylate. J Vasc Access. 2021;22(4):597-601. doi:10.1177/1129729820954743

16. Harris DL, Schlegel M, Markovitz A, Woods L, Miles T. Securing peripheral intravenous catheters in babies without applying adhesive dressings to the skin: a proof-of-concept study. BMC Pediatr. 2022;22(1):291. doi:10.1186/s12887-022-03345-8

17. Hawes ML. Vascular access device securement for oncology patients and those with chronic diseases. Br J Nurs. 2021;30(8):S20-S25. doi:10.12968/bjon.2021.30.8.S20

18. Hitchcock J, Haigh DA, Martin N, Davies S. Preventing medical adhesive-related skin injury (MARSI). Br J Nurs. 2021;30(15):S48-S56. doi:10.12968/bjon.2021.30.15.S48

19. Jacobs L, Feoli F, Bruderer P, et al. Severe bullous pemphigoid onset after jugular catheter placement in a patient on hemodialysis. Case Rep Nephrol Dial. 2022;12(2):138-144. doi:10.1159/000524903

20. Jitrungruengnij N, Anugulruengkitt S, Rattananupong T, et al. Efficacy of chlorhexidine patches on central line-associated bloodstream infections in children. Pediatr Int. 2020;62(7):789-796. doi:10.1111/ped.14200

21. Kim MJ, Jang JM, Kim HK, Heo HJ, Jeong IS. Medical adhesives-related skin injury in a pediatric intensive care unit: a single-center observational study. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2019;46(6):491-496. doi:10.1097/WON.0000000000000592

22. Kleidon TM, Rickard CM, Gibson V, et al. Smile-secure my intravenous line effectively: a pilot randomised controlled trial of peripheral intravenous catheter securement in paediatrics. J Tissue Viability. 2020;29(2):82-90. doi:10.1016/j.jtv.2020.03.006

23. Li JY, Li J, Fan YY, Lin XL, Huang CL, Qin HY. Application and effect evaluation of multidisciplinary team management model: on central venous access device associated skin impairment based on Delphi method. J Vasc Access. 2022. doi:10.1177/11297298221075166

24. Lim SD, Fauver M, Svanevik CC, et al. Proof of concept of a surrogate high-adhesion medical tape using photo-thermal release for rapid and less painful removal. J Med Device. 2020;14(2). doi:10.1115/1.4045298

25. Liu M, Zheng C, Guan X, Ke Z, Zou P, Yang Y. Development of central venous access device-associated skin impairment assessment instrument. Nursing Open. 2022;9(4):2095-2107. doi:10.1002/nop2.1220

26. Marcant P, Moreau A, Da Silva A, Aelbrecht-Meurisse C, Staumont-Sallé D. Central venous access device–associated contact dermatitis in patients with cancer: the utility of extensive screening patch tests. Contact Dermatitis. 2021;84(5):348-350. doi:10.1111/cod.13744

27. McNichol L, Lund C, Rosen T, Gray M. Medical adhesives and patient safety: state of the science: consensus statements for the assessment, prevention, and treatment of adhesive-related skin injuries. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2013;5(6):323-338. doi:10.1097/JDN.0000000000000009

28. McParlan D, Edgar L, Gault M, Gillespie S, Menelly R, Reid M. Intravascular catheter migration: a cross-sectional and health-economic comparison of adhesive and subcutaneous engineered stabilisation devices for intravascular device securement. J Vasc Access. 2020;21(1):33-38. doi:10.1177/1129729819851059

29. Melhorn JL, Burkett M. Decreasing skin breakdown around central lines in patients receiving thiotepa prior to bone marrow transplantation. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol Nurs. 2022;39(6):396-401. doi:10.1177/27527530211056001

30. Milanesi N, Gola M, Francalanci S. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by a polyurethane catheter. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;79(5):313-314. doi:10.1111/cod.13050

31. Mishra U, Jani P, Maheshwari R, et al. Skincare practices in extremely premature infants: a survey of tertiary neonatal intensive care units from Australia and New Zealand. J Pediatr Child Health. 2021;57(10):1627-1633. doi:10.1111/jpc.15578

32. Neri I, Ravaioli GM, Faldella G, Capretti MG, Arcuri S, Patrizi A. Chlorhexidine-induced chemical burns in very low birth weight infants. J Pediatr. 2017;191:262-265.e2. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.08.002

33. Pires-Júnior JF, Chianca TCM, Borges EL, Azevedo C, Simino GPR. Medical adhesive-related skin injury in cancer patients: a prospective cohort study. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2021;29:e3500. doi:10.1590/1518-8345.5227.3500

34. Pivkina AI, Gusarov VG, Blot SI, Zhivotneva IV, Pasko NV, Zamyatin MN. Effect of an acrylic terpolymer barrier film beneath transparent catheter dressings on skin integrity, risk of dressing disruption, catheter colonisation and infection. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2018;46:17-23. doi:10.1016/j.iccn.2017.11.002

35. Rabelo AL, Bordonal J, Almeida TL, Oliveira PP, Moraes JT. Medical adhesive-related skin injury in adult intensive care unit: scoping review. Rev Bras Enferm. 2022;75(6):e20210926. doi:10.1590/0034-7167-2021-0926

36. Ryder M, Duley C. Evaluation of compatibility of a gum mastic liquid adhesive and liquid adhesive remover with an alcoholic chlorhexidine gluconate skin preparation. J Infus Nurs. 2017;40(4):245-252. doi:10.1097/NAN.0000000000000230

37. Saleh MYN, Ibrahim EIM. Prevalence, severity, and characteristics of medical device related pressure injuries in adult intensive care patients: a prospective observational study. Int Wound J. 2023;20(1):109-119. doi:10.1111/iwj.13845

38. Sharma A, Kulkarni S, Thukral A, et al. Aqueous chlorhexidine 1% versus 2% for neonatal skin antisepsis: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2021;106(6):F643-F648. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2020-321174

39. Short KL. Implementation of a central line maintenance bundle for dislodgement and infection prevention in the NICU. Adv Neonatal Care. 2019;19(2):145-150. doi:10.1097/ANC.0000000000000566

40. Swanson S, Bashmail R, Fellin CR, et al. Prototype development of a temperature-sensitive high-adhesion medical tape to reduce medical-adhesive-related skin injury and improve quality of care. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(13):7164. doi:10.3390/ijms23137164

41. Thayer D. Skin damage associated with vascular access: understanding common mechanisms of injury and strategies for prevention. J Radiol Nurs. 2021;40(1):61-68. doi:10.1016/j.jradnu.2020.05.011

42. Tian L, Yin X, Zhu Y, Zhang X, Zhang C. Analysis of factors causing skin damage in the application of peripherally inserted central catheter in cancer patients. J Oncol. 2021:6628473. doi:10.1155/2021/6628473

43. Ullman AJ, Kleidon TM, Turner K, et al. Skin complications associated with pediatric central venous access devices: prevalence, incidence, and risk. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs. 2019;36(5):343-351. doi:10.1177/1043454219849572

44. Ullman AJ, Long D, Williams T, et al. Innovation in central venous access device security: a pilot randomized controlled trial in pediatric critical care. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2019;20(10):E480-E488. doi:10.1097/PCC.0000000000002059

45. Ullman AJ, Mihala G, O’Leary K, et al. Skin complications associated with vascular access devices: a secondary analysis of 13 studies involving 10,859 devices. Int J Nurs Stud. 2019;91:6-13. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.10.006

46. Wiemken T. Skin antiseptics in healthcare facilities: is a targeted approach necessary? BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1158. doi:10.1186/s12889-019-7507-5

47. Woo K, Hill R, LeBlanc K, et al. Technological features of advanced skin protectants and an examination of the evidence base. J Wound Care. 2019;28(2):110-125. doi:10.12968/jowc.2019.28.2.110

48. Yang H, Rui Y, Wang G. A case of unexpected peripherally inserted central catheter removal from a colorectal cancer patient with cetuximab-induced skin toxicity and contact dermatitis at the peripherally inserted central catheter insertion site: should we recommend the patient to choose subcutaneous port preferentially? J Vasc Access. 2021;22(2):310-313. doi:10.1177/1129729820910880

49. Ye GJ, Wang CY, Chen Y, Xu J. Case report: a multidisciplinary approach to maintenance of a peripherally inserted central catheter in a patient with extensive exfoliative dermatitis. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2019;12(2):2004-2009.

50. 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 Infus Nurs. 2022;45(3):154-164. doi:10.1097/NAN.0000000000000467

51. Zhao H, He Y, Huang H, et al. Prevalence of medical adhesive-related skin injury at peripherally inserted central catheter insertion site in oncology patients. J Vasc Access. 2018;19(1):23-27. doi:10.5301/jva.5000805

52. Zhao H, He Y, Wei Q, Ying Y. Medical adhesive-related skin injury prevalence at the peripherally inserted central catheter insertion site: a cross-sectional, multiple-center study. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2018;45(1):22-25. doi:10.1097/WON.0000000000000394

53. Zhao Y, Bian L, Yang J. Intervention efficacy of MARSI nursing management on skin injury at peripherally inserted central catheter insertion site on oncological patients. Int Wound J. 2022;19(8):2055-2061. doi:10.1111/iwj.13805

This clinical guideline synthesizes current evidence-based practice recommendations. Clinical judgment should be applied when implementing these recommendations in individual patient care. Regular review and updates are recommended as new evidence emerges.

Document Version: 1.0 Last Updated: January 2026 Review Date: January 2027