Literature DB >> 34172194

Terminology for vascular access devices.

Emanuele Iacobone1, Fabrizio Brescia2, Giuseppe Capozzoli3, Daniele Elisei1, Davide Giustivi4, Antonio L A Greca5, Fulvio Pinelli6, Mauro Pittiruti5.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34172194      PMCID: PMC8217067          DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2020.12.114

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vasc Surg        ISSN: 0741-5214            Impact factor:   4.860


× No keyword cloud information.
We read with interest the report by Jasinski et al. The Italian Group of Venous Access Devices has recently suggested clinical recommendations for optimizing the practice of insertion and management of vascular access devices (VADs) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). , We totally agree that non–critically ill patients with COVID-19 often will not require a central VAD. In contrast, patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit will often require a central VAD.1, 2, 3 However, the protocol suggested by Jasinski et al could lead to some confusion in the terminology and, thus, to an inappropriate use of the devices. Jasinski et al proposed trimming a triple-lumen peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) such that the tip cannot reach the superior vena cava. However, by definition, such a device will no longer be a PICC but a peripheral VAD. According to the most recent data, , peripheral VADs include short peripheral cannulas (<6 cm long), long peripheral catheters (6-15 cm long; so-called short midline catheters), and midline catheters (16-25 cm long; so-called midclavicular catheters, because the tip is in the axillary vein or subclavian vein). The “modified PICC” proposed by Jasinski et al should be classified as a peripheral catheter and included in the category of midline catheters. However, 20- to 25-cm, 4F to 5F, single-lumen and double-lumen catheters (ie, midline catheters) already exist and are commercially available; thus, no need exists to modify a PICC. These VADs are appropriate for patients with COVID-19 when a central VAD is not specifically needed. , If we required a 20- to 25-cm, 5F to 6F, triple-lumen catheter (which has been quite rare), we might even trim a PICC; however, we should be careful to name it properly, as a “midline” catheter. The unnecessary off-label modification of the length of a catheter is a very dangerous practice. Its use could generate confusion for clinicians, because they might erroneously use the “modified PICC” as a central catheter, leading to several local and systemic complications (eg, phlebitis, thrombosis, extravasation, and, even, severe tissue damage). EI and FB contributed equally and share co-first authorship.
  5 in total

1.  Long peripheral catheters: Is it time to address the confusion?

Authors:  Kirby R Qin; Ramesh M Nataraja; Maurizio Pacilli
Journal:  J Vasc Access       Date:  2018-12-28       Impact factor: 2.283

2.  Vascular access in COVID-19 patients: Smart decisions for maximal safety.

Authors:  Giancarlo Scoppettuolo; Daniele Guerino Biasucci; Mauro Pittiruti
Journal:  J Vasc Access       Date:  2020-05-05       Impact factor: 2.283

3.  A protocol for central venous access in patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

Authors:  Patrick T Jasinski; Georgios Tzavellas; Jerry A Rubano; Daniel N Rutigliano; Edvard Skripochnik; Apostolos K Tassiopoulos
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2020-07-02       Impact factor: 4.268

4.  Long peripheral catheters and midline catheters: Insights from a survey of vascular access specialists.

Authors:  Kirby R Qin; Mauro Pittiruti; Ramesh M Nataraja; Maurizio Pacilli
Journal:  J Vasc Access       Date:  2020-10-20       Impact factor: 2.283

5.  Recommendations for the use of vascular access in the COVID-19 patients: an Italian perspective.

Authors:  Mauro Pittiruti; Fulvio Pinelli
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2020-05-28       Impact factor: 9.097

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.