Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/25143
Title: Long peripheral catheters and midline catheters: Insights from a survey of vascular access specialists.
Austin Authors: Qin, Kirby R ;Pittiruti, Mauro;Nataraja, Ramesh M;Pacilli, Maurizio
Affiliation: Department of Surgery, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
Surgery
Department of Paediatrics, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Department of Surgery, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Monash Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
Issue Date: Nov-2021
Date: 2020-10-20
Publication information: The Journal of Vascular Access 2021; 22(6): 905-910
Abstract: Peripheral intravenous access is no longer limited to the standard intravenous catheter (cannula). Devices varying in length, material and insertion technique, are increasingly accessible. There is substantial variability surrounding the nomenclature and use of these devices in the literature. We wished to understand the attitude of vascular access specialists towards the nomenclature and use of peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs), long peripheral catheters (LPCs) and midline catheters (MCs). A 15-question electronic survey was sent to members of the Association of Vascular Access (AVA) regarding the nomenclature and use of PIVCs, LPCs and MCs. A total of 228 participants completed the survey. Approximately two-thirds of respondents use LPCs (65.8%) and MCs (71.9%) in their clinical practice. The most common indication for LPCs was difficult venous access (56.5%), while the most common indication for MCs was medium-term (1-4 weeks) intravenous therapy (62.7%). The majority of participants (57.9%) agreed with the following classification of peripheral intravenous devices:PIVCs: 2 to 6 cm in length, terminating distal to the axilla;LPCs: 6 to 15 cm in length, terminating distal to the axilla;MCs: 15-25 cm in length, terminating in the axilla.Participants suggested that the length of the catheter should be considered a general recommendation, as LPCs and MCs should be primarily differentiated by tip location. The majority of vascular access specialists from AVA have incorporated LPCs and MCs into their repertoire of peripheral venous access tools. We envisage that their use will increase as the clinical community becomes more familiar with these devices.
URI: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/25143
DOI: 10.1177/1129729820966226
ORCID: 0000-0001-5215-5985
0000-0002-2225-7654
0000-0003-1259-4304
Journal: The Journal of Vascular Access
PubMed URL: 33078685
Type: Journal Article
Subjects: New devices
long peripheral catheter
midline catheter
nursing
peripheral venous access
Appears in Collections:Journal articles

Show full item record

Page view(s)

48
checked on Nov 18, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.