Kirby R Qin1,2, Mauro Pittiruti3, Ramesh M Nataraja1,4,5, Maurizio Pacilli1,4,5. 1. Department of Paediatrics, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. 2. Department of Surgery, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia. 3. Department of Surgery, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy. 4. Department of Surgery, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. 5. Department of Paediatric Surgery, Monash Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 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). METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
BACKGROUND: 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). METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
Entities:
Keywords:
New devices; long peripheral catheter; midline catheter; nursing; peripheral venous access