Delphi method validation of a procedural performance checklist for insertion of an ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheter

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (11) ◽  
pp. 2227-2230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine F. Jung ◽  
Alan H. Breaud ◽  
Alexander Y. Sheng ◽  
Mark W. Byrne ◽  
Krithika M. Muruganandan ◽  
...  
2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 457-460 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirby R Qin ◽  
Ramesh M Nataraja ◽  
Maurizio Pacilli

Long peripheral catheters are 6–15 cm peripheral dwelling catheters that are inserted via a catheter-over-needle or direct Seldinger (catheter-over-guidewire) technique. When inserted in the upper extremity, the distal tip terminates before reaching the axilla, typically no further than the mid-upper arm. This is distinct from a midline catheter, which is inserted via a modified Seldinger technique and terminates at the axilla. The nomenclature of this catheter is confusing and inconsistent. We have identified over a dozen labels in the literature, all describing the same device. These include ‘15 cm catheter’, ‘catheter inserted with a Seldinger method’, ‘extended dwell/midline peripheral catheter’, ‘Leaderflex line’, ‘long catheter’, ‘long IV catheter’, ‘long peripheral cannula’, ‘long peripheral catheter’, ‘long peripheral venous catheter’, ‘long polyurethane catheter’, ‘midline cannula’, ‘mini-midline’, ‘peripheral intravenous catheter’, ‘Seldinger catheter’, ‘short midline catheter’, ‘short long line’ and ‘ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheter’. The purpose of this editorial is to achieve some level of standardisation in the nomenclature of this device. Is it time to address the confusion? We suggest adopting ‘long peripheral catheter’. However, we encourage discussion and debate in reaching a consensus.


2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. e406
Author(s):  
Vikas N. O’Reilly-Shah ◽  
Amber Franz ◽  
Cornelius B. Groenewald ◽  
Michael Collins ◽  
Lance S. Patak

Cureus ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ting Xu Tan ◽  
Ying Ying Wu ◽  
Ian Riley ◽  
Youyou Duanmu ◽  
Samuel Rylowicz ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
pp. 112972982092982
Author(s):  
James Thomas Cottrell ◽  
Todd Chang ◽  
Jennifer Baird ◽  
Joanna Barreras ◽  
Marsha A Elkhunovich

Objective: To compare the dwell times of ultrasound-guided and non-ultrasound-guided short peripheral intravenous catheters in hospitalized children. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of data from 256 ultrasound-guided and 287 traditional peripheral intravenous catheters placed in hospitalized children between 1 September2016 and 31 October 2016 at a free-standing children’s hospital with a 10-member vascular access team. A two-sample independent t test and Kaplan–Meier estimator were used to assess differences in dwell times between the ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheters and non-ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheters. Child age, peripheral intravenous catheter location, and subjective difficulty of placement were also analyzed. Results: There was a significant difference in mean hours of dwell time for ultrasound-guided versus non-ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheters (96.06 vs 59.39, p < 0.001). Mean increase in dwell time was 36.68 h (95% CI: [24.14–49.22]). Median dwell times (50% probability of survival) for ultrasound-guided and non-ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheters were 118 h (95% CI: [95–137]) and 71 h (95% CI: [61–79]), respectively. None of the additional covariates were significant predictors of dwell time. Conclusion: Peripheral intravenous catheters placed using ultrasound-guided methods had a significantly longer dwell time than those placed using non-ultrasound-guided methods in a cohort of hospitalized pediatric patients. This is in line with the findings in the adult literature and may suggest a need to increase the use of ultrasound-guided method for peripheral intravenous catheter placement in pediatric practice.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document