Midline or long peripheral catheters in difficult venous access conditions? A comparative study in patients with acute cardiovascular diseases

Fabiani, Adam; Eletto, Valentina; Dreas, Lorella; Beltrame, Daria; Sanson, Gianfranco

doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2019.12.025

Cited by 11 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…6,12,[14][15][16]39 Recognition of the impact of VAD placement on patient comfort and satisfaction is further incentive to explore options with a high first-insertion success rate, with the added potential for reduced procedural costs. 3,4,7,9,[15][16][17] 3 presents adverse events associated with peripheral intravenous therapy.…”

Section: Questions To Considermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The MC can provide a valuable VAD option in patients in whom venous access is difficult, and a PICC may have been placed for a duration of therapy that a short PIVC cannot typically support. [2][3][4]8,15 Although the expected dwell time of a VAD should not be used to dictate planned removal, the dwell time of the MC, 1 to 4 weeks, is certainly more favorable than that of other peripheral VADs. 3,7,8,15 Another possible patient satisfier is the potential to collect blood specimens from the MC, 9,42 although the 2021 INS standards indicate that no evidence is yet available to guide technique or validate the accuracy of blood specimen collection from the MC.…”

Section: Questions To Considermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[2][3][4]8,15 Although the expected dwell time of a VAD should not be used to dictate planned removal, the dwell time of the MC, 1 to 4 weeks, is certainly more favorable than that of other peripheral VADs. 3,7,8,15 Another possible patient satisfier is the potential to collect blood specimens from the MC, 9,42 although the 2021 INS standards indicate that no evidence is yet available to guide technique or validate the accuracy of blood specimen collection from the MC. 23 The exponential increase in MC use, particularly in difficult venous access scenarios and as a CVC alternative, 8,11,12,14,32,43 has stimulated expanded research into the benefits and risks of peripheral VAD use.…”

Section: Questions To Considermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…8 A crucial niche for MC use has been for patients with difficult intravenous access (DIVA). 3,[5][6][7][13][14][15] Although various definitions have been used to identify DIVA in the literature, the 2021 INS standards definition is as follows:…”

Section: Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…

Common vascular access challenges (as illustrated in Table 1) must be navigated wisely to achieve the critical and at times competing goals of vessel preservation and effective delivery of needed infusion therapy. [2][3][4][5] Resources and algorithms are available to guide vascular access device (VAD) selection and placement, but the evolving nature of these situations, varied available resources, and conflicting or limited evidence-based recommendations create uncertainty. [6][7][8] In addition, the process of daily justification of retaining an existing central venous catheter (CVC), an important strategy to prevent central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs), creates a sense of urgency to de-escalate infusions to a peripheral VAD.

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Does the Midline Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Have a Place in Critical Care?

Nickel

2021

Critical Care Nurse

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The goals of infusion therapy are to preserve vascular health and safely deliver needed treatment. Achieving these goals is challenging in critical care because of the complexity of the treatment required. Daily justification of retaining an existing central venous catheter also creates urgency to change to a peripheral vascular access device. The midline catheter has had a resurgence in use because of the need for a long-term peripheral vascular access device not linked to central catheter–associated bloodstream infection risk. Objective To review the characteristics of midline catheters, the benefits and risks of midline catheters, and current evidence regarding midline catheter use in critical care. Results Research related to midline catheters has greatly expanded the body of knowledge regarding vascular access device selection and midline catheter use. Discussion Although the quality and results of research on vascular access devices vary widely, a more accurate safety profile is emerging to illustrate how midline catheter use can support the goals of infusion therapy. Conclusions Optimizing vascular access device selection requires recognition that every vascular access device can cause patient harm. Although the midline catheter appears to fill an important niche in infusion therapy, use of the midline catheter should be carefully evaluated. Midline catheters should not be used as a catheter-associated bloodstream infection prevention strategy, should be inserted to administer peripherally compatible solutions, and should be considered for short-term continuous vesicant therapy only in emergent situations until more definitive vascular access can be achieved.

show abstract