Abstract
Background
Intravenous vesicants are commonly infused via peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVC) despite guidelines recommending administration via central route. The impact of these medications on PIVC failure is unclear. We aimed to assess dose-related impact of these caustic medications on ultrasound-guided (US) PIVC survivorship.
Methods
We performed a secondary analysis of a randomized control trial that compared survival of two catheters: a standard long (SL) and an ultra-long (UL) US PIVC. This study involved reviewing and recording all vesicants infusions through the PIVCs. Type and number of vesicants doses were extracted and characterized as one, two or multiple. The most commonly used vesicants were individually categorized for further analysis. The primary outcome was PIVC failure accounting for use and timing of vesicant infusates.
Results
Between October 2018 and March 2019, 257 subjects were randomized with 131 in the UL group and 126 in the SL group. Vesicants were infused in 96 (37.4%) out of 257 study participants. In multivariable time-dependent extended Cox regression analysis, there was no significant increased risk of failure due to vesicant use [adjusted hazard ratio, aHR 1.71 (95% CI 0.76–1.81) p = 0.477]. The number of vesicant doses was not significantly associated with the increased risk of PIVC failure [(1 vs 0) aHR 1.20 (95% CI 0.71–2.02) p = 0.500], [(2 vs 0) aHR 1.51 (95% CI 0.67–3.43) p = 0.320] and [(≥ 3 vs 0) aHR 0.98 (95% CI 0.50–1.92) p = 0.952].
Conclusion
Vesicant usage did not significantly increase the risk of PIVC failure even when multiple doses were needed in this investigation. Ultrasound-guided PIVCs represent a pragmatic option when vesicant therapy is anticipated. Nevertheless, it is notable that overall PIVC failure rates remain high and other safety events related to vesicant use should be considered when clinicians make vascular access decisions for patients.
Introduction
With over 300 million used annually in the United States, peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVC) are the most commonly used invasive device in the acute care setting [1,2]. It is estimated that up to 90% of patients require intravenous (IV) access during their hospitalization [3–5]. Unfortunately, PIVCs have high failure rates with up to 63% failing prematurely [3,6]. PIVC failure leads to significant patient harm in the form of repeated insertion attempts, treatment delays, venous depletion, prolongation of hospital stay, psychological and physical stress from needlesticks, and increased rates of nosocomial infections [7–10]. Further, the healthcare costs associated with complications are astounding and the financial burden of premature catheter failure is at a minimum of $1.5 billion nationally [11,12].
Certain intravenous medications categorized as vesicants and irritants are known to cause vein and local tissue injury. The Infusion Nursing Society (INS) created this list based on infusate osmolarity thresholds that increase the likelihood of these complications [13]. These medications can cause local reactions at the level of the vein precipitating vein wall injury, inflammation, thrombus formation, extravasation into the surrounding tissue and potentially lead to tissue necrosis. Premature catheter failure at a minimum is a likely consequence but patients may require additional therapies and even surgical intervention for treatment [14].
It is perceived the impact of these medications on larger proximal veins with higher flow rates and improved hemodilution diminishes the likelihood of these complications. Thus, guidelines support the use of the vesicants and most irritants via central venous lines [15]. Some recent studies have shown that these medications may be safely infused in smaller distal peripheral veins with lower flow rates, particularly many irritants [16–18]. The evidence supporting the delivery of vesicant infusates via PIVCs is limited and has mixed results regarding patient safety [19]. As most studies have focused on complications, specifically extravasation, there is a paucity of evidence related to these caustic infusions and the impact on catheter survivorship. Further, the cumulative impact of multiple doses of vesicants on catheter survival and complications has not been evaluated.
We aimed to explore the impact of vesicant administration on IV catheter survival and complications for PIVCs as well as assess for differences in survival when catheters were dichotomized by length.
Methods
Study sample
The study was conducted at a large 1100 bed tertiary care center with an annual emergency department census of approximately 130,000 visits. We performed a secondary analysis of an existing single site, randomized control trial that directly compared two catheters: (1) a standard long (SL) 20-gauge 4.78 cm Becton Dickinson (BD) Insyte™ Autoguard™ IV catheter and (2) an ultra-long (UL) 20-gauge 6.35 cm B. Braun Introcan Safety® IV catheter (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03655106). The primary study was approved for adult patients at least 18 years of age with self-reported difficult vascular access (DVA) and at least one of the following: history of requiring 2 or more intravenous attempts on a previous visit, previous requirement for a rescue catheter (ultrasonographically guided intravenous catheter, midline catheter, or central venous access), end-stage renal disease and receiving dialysis, injection drug use, or sickle cell disease. Patients were excluded if they were previously enrolled, withdrew from the study, or presented when trained intravenous line inserters were unavailable. Finally, 257 participants were included for analysis. This secondary analysis from a primary study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Beaumont Health.
The research team assessed catheters for functionality at the time of insertion and daily for the life of the catheter. A functional catheter could be flushed with 5 mL of normal saline without resistance and without complication. Research staff noted whether the study catheter survived to completion of therapy or failed prematurely. If the catheter failed before the follow-up, the date, time, and reason for failure were collected from the patient’s medical record. If a patient was discharged before their follow-up, the line was presumed functional unless stated otherwise and the line removal date and time were collected from the patient’s chart. Follow-up visits included reviewing and recording all medications administered via the intravenous lines. Complications were identified during daily site assessments and chart reviews and included: phlebitis, infiltration, dislodgment, occlusion, and leaking.
Independent variables
Three scenarios related to vesicant infusates were considered on analysis. (1) Specifically, vesicants and irritant infusates as recognized by the INS were noted (S1 Appendix with list of all infusates used in study trial) and use of vesicants was characterized as yes/no. (2) Number of vesicants/irritants doses were extracted and characterized as one, two, or multiple. (3) The most commonly used vesicants were further individually categorized for further analysis and included: vancomycin, dextrose 50% solutions, and intravenous contrast for computed tomography.
Outcome variable
The primary outcome was the premature catheter failure of US PIVC.
Primary data analysis
Continuous data were shown as means (standard deviations; SD) and categorical data as frequencies (percentages). Clinical characteristics were summarized by use of vesicants and irritant infusates and compared by using t-test and χ2 test for continuous and categorical variables, respectively.
To explore the association between vesicant infusates and PIVC failure, the effect of vesicants on catheter failure was assessed with time-dependent extended survival analysis, which accounted for timing of vesicant administration. The median survival time of catheters by vesicant infusates was estimated in the modified Kaplan-Meier (K-M) survival curves (e.g., stsplit in statistical software, Stata). To examine if the effect of vesicants on catheter failure was dependent on the length of catheters (UL and SL), we initially tested the interaction term of vesicants infusates and length of catheters in Cox regression model and results indicated that the interaction was not statistically significant (ie, the effect of vesicants on catheter failure did not statistically significantly depend on length of catheters.) (S2 Appendix). Hence, in multivariable Cox regression, we refitted models without the interaction term of vesicant infusates and length of catheters to assess the effect of vesicants infusates adjusted for length of catheters only and other clinical characteristics of patients pre-specified in the original trial study [20], including age, sex, history of end-stage renal disease, body mass index, systolic blood pressure and pulse rates. We report the hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). All tests with p < 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance. All statistical analyses were performed with Stata 15.1 (StataCorp) and SAS v9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC).
Results
Between October 2018 and March 2019, 270 patients were randomized to ultra-long (135) and standard long (135) groups. After some exclusions, the final data set included 257 subjects with 131 in the UL group and 126 in the SL group. The average age was 59.2 (SD 18.4) with 71.6% female gender. Average BMI was 31.7 (SD 10.0) and 16.7% had end-stage renal disease. The average vein diameter was 0.3 cm (SD 0.1) and vein depth was 1.0 cm (SD 0.3). Vesicants were infused in 96 (37.4%) out of 257 study participants. (Table 1) Forty-four (45.8%) of catheters with vesicants failed while 50 (31.1%) of catheters without vesicants failed (p = 0.017). In the UL group, 18/41 (43.9%) failed with vesicant/irritant used compared to 23/90 (25.6%) without vesicant/irritant use. In the SL group, 26/55 (47.3%) failed with vesicant/irritant use compared to 27/71 (38.0%) without vesicant/irritant use. There was no difference in the occurrence of PIVC failure by use of vesicant/irritant across US PIVC groups (Breslow-Day-Tarone test, p = 0.409) (Table 2).
Table 1. Patient and intravenous-related characteristics stratified by use of vesicant and irritant infusates.
| Vesicant and Irritant Infusates | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | All | Yes | No | p value | |||
| N | 257 | 96 | 161 | ||||
| Total dose | – | ||||||
| 0 | 161 | (62.7) | – | 161 | (100) | ||
| 1 | 55 | (21.4) | 55 | (57.3) | – | ||
| 2 | 14 | (5.4) | 14 | (14.6) | – | ||
| ≥ 3 | 27 | (10.5) | 27 | (28.1) | – | ||
| Patient characteristics | |||||||
| Age, years, mean (SD) | 59.2 | (18.4) | 59.1 | (17.6) | 59.3 | (18.8) | 0.944 |
| Sex, No. (%) | |||||||
| Male | 73 | (28.4) | 26 | (27.1) | 47 | (29.2) | 0.717 |
| Female | 184 | (71.6) | 70 | (72.9) | 114 | (70.8) | |
| ESRD, No. (%) | |||||||
| No | 214 | (83.3) | 79 | (82.3) | 135 | (83.9) | 0.746 |
| Yes | 43 | (16.7) | 17 | (17.7) | 26 | (16.1) | |
| BMI, kg/m2, mean (SD) | 31.7 | (10.0) | 30.8 | (9.4) | 32.3 | (10.3) | 0.264 |
| Systolic blood pressure, mmHg, mean (SD) | 141.1 | (27.9) | 139.8 | (27.2) | 141.8 | (28.4) | 0.585 |
| Diastolic blood pressure, mmHg, mean (SD) | 75.2 | (14.9) | 75.4 | (15.0) | 75.1 | (14.9) | 0.853 |
| Pulse rate, bpm, mean (SD) | 88.9 | (19.3) | 90.8 | (18.2) | 87.9 | (19.9) | 0.246 |
| Intravenous characteristics | |||||||
| Ultrasound-guided PIVC, No. (%) | |||||||
| Standard Long, SL | 126 | (49.0) | 55 | (57.3) | 71 | (44.1) | 0.041 |
| Ultra Long, UL | 131 | (51.0) | 41 | (42.7) | 90 | (55.9) | |
| Depth of vein, cm, mean (SD) | 1.0 | (0.3) | 1.0 | (0.3) | 1.0 | (0.3) | 0.989 |
| Diameter of vein, cm, mean (SD) | 0.3 | (0.1) | 0.3 | (0.1) | 0.4 | (0.1) | 0.119 |
| Duration of line function, days, mean (SD) | 2.6 | (3.5) | 3.5 | (4.6) | 2.1 | (2.4) | 0.002 |
SD, standard deviation; ESRD, end-stage renal disease; BMI, body mass index; PIVC, peripheral intravenous catheter.
Table 2. Summary on intravenous line failure.
| Ultra Long PIVC (UL) | Standard Long PIVC (SL) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vesicant and Irritant Infusates | Vesicant and Irritant Infusates | |||
| Line function | Yes | No | Yes | No |
| Failure | 18 | 23 | 26 | 27 |
| Not failure | 23 | 67 | 29 | 44 |
PIVC, peripheral intravenous catheter.
In the modified K-M curves, results indicated that there was no significant difference in median survival duration in PIVC by use of vesicant/irritant [(vesicant/irritant use vs no vesicant/irritant use), 6 vs 7 days p = 0.18]. (Fig 1) In univariable time-dependent Cox regression analysis, there was no significant increased risk of failure due to vesicant use [HR 1.31 (95% CI 0.87–1.98) p = 0.195]. Similarly, in multivariable Cox model, there was no significant impact of caustic infusates on PIVC failure [adjusted hazard ratio, aHR 1.17 (95% CI 0.76–1.81) p = 0.477] (Table 3).
Fig 1. Modified Kaplan-Meier survival curve estimates by status of vesicant use for PIVC survival.
Table 3. Effects of any use of vesicant/irritant infusates on intravenous line failure.
| Effects¶ | Model 1§ | Model 2‡ | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unadjusted HR (95% CI) | p value | Adjusted HR (95% CI) | p value | |
| Vesicant/Irritant Infusates (yes vs no) | 1.31 (0.87–1.98) | 0.195 | 1.17 (0.76–1.81) | 0.477 |
| Ultrasound-guided PIVC (UL vs SL) | 0.45 (0.29–0.72) | 0.001 | ||
PIVC, peripheral intravenous catheter; UL, ultra long; SL, standard long; BMI, body mass index; ESRD, end-stage renal disease; SBP, systolic blood pressure; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval.
¶ Use of vesicant/irritant infusates was time-dependent variable.
§ Model 1 only included use of vesicant/irritant infusates.
‡ Model 2 included use of vesicant/irritant infusates, adjusted for PIVC type and other clinical characteristics including age, sex, BMI, ESRD, SBP, pulse rate, and depth of vein (S2 Appendix). Only the adjusted effects of use of vesicant/irritant infusates and PIVC type were shown.
When assessing the impact of number of doses on failure, there was no statistically significant association between catheter failure and vesicant infusate with one dose [(1 vs 0) aHR 1.20 (95% CI 0.71–2.02) p = 0.500]. Similarly, when 2 doses and ≥ 3 doses were infused, there were no statistically significant effect on the risk of IV catheter failure, respectively, [(2 vs 0) aHR 1.51 (95% CI 0.67–3.43) p = 0.320; (≥ 3 vs 0) aHR 0.98 (95% CI 0.50–1.92) p = 0.952] (Table 4).
Table 4. Effects of total dose of vesicant/irritant infusates on intravenous line failure.
| Effects¶ | Model 1§ | Model 2‡ | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unadjusted HR (95% CI) | p value | Adjusted HR (95% CI) | p value | |
| Vesicant/Irritant Infusates | ||||
| Total dose (1 vs 0) | 1.31 (0.80–2.15) | 0.284 | 1.20 (0.71–2.02) | 0.500 |
| Total dose (2 vs 0) | 1.69 (0.76–3.75) | 0.195 | 1.51 (0.67–3.43) | 0.320 |
| Total dose (≥3 vs 0) | 1.16 (0.61–2.20) | 0.652 | 0.98 (0.50–1.92) | 0.952 |
| Ultrasound-guided PIVC (UL vs SL) | 0.45 (0.29–0.72) | 0.001 | ||
PIVC, peripheral intravenous catheter; UL, ultra long; SL, standard long; BMI, body mass index; ESRD, end-stage renal disease; SBP, systolic blood pressure; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval.
¶ Total dose of vesicant/irritant infusates was time-dependent variable.
§ Model 1 only included total dose of vesicant/irritant infusates.
‡ Model 2 included total dose of vesicant/irritant infusates, adjusted for PIVC type and other clinical characteristics including age, sex, BMI, ESRD, SBP, pulse rate, and depth of vein. Only the adjusted effects of total dose of vesicant/irritant infusates and PIVC type were shown.
The three most commonly used caustic infusates were IV contrast (51), vancomycin (28), and dextrose containing solutions (14). When considering these medication types, each of the vesicant infusates had no significant effect on the risk of PIVC failure, respectively (Table 5).
Table 5. Effects of each specific vesicant/irritant infusates on intravenous line failure in separate analyses.
| Effects¶ | Specific Type of Medication§ | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IV Contrast | Vancomycin | Dextrose 50% | ||||
| Adjusted HR (95% CI) | p value | Adjusted HR (95% CI) | p value | Adjusted HR (95% CI) | p value | |
| Vesicant/Irritant Infusates (yes vs no) | 1.32 (0.79–2.21) | 0.295 | 1.07 (0.60–1.90) | 0.824 | 0.78 (0.33–1.80) | 0.555 |
| Ultrasound-guided PIVC (UL vs SL) | 0.45 (0.29–0.72) | 0.001 | 0.44 (0.28–0.70) | 0.001 | 0.44 (0.28–0.69) | < 0.001 |
PIVC, peripheral intravenous catheter; UL, ultra long; SL, standard long; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval.
¶ Use of specific vesicant/irritant infusates was time-dependent variable in each separate analysis.
§ Each regression analysis included a specific vesicant/irritant infusates, PIVC type, and other clinical characteristics including age, sex, BMI, ESRD, SBP, pulse rate, and depth of vein. Only the adjusted effects of vesicant/irritant infusates and PIVC type were shown.
Phlebitis was noted on clinical assessment in 14 cases with 3 cases in the UL group and 11 cases in the SL group. No cases of phlebitis in the UL group involved vesicant/irritant use. 7 cases in the SL group were associated with vesicant use and 4 cases were not associated with vesicant use (S3 Appendix).
Limitations
Our study had several limitations. First, this investigation was conducted at a single site in a large academic suburban tertiary care center and results may not be generalizable to other settings and populations. Second, in some scenarios patients had multiple intravenous lines and it was not always clear what access point was used for the caustic infusion. Third, a number or medications were grouped together for the majority of the analysis and the impact on catheter survival and complications may be different for individual therapies. Specifically, a small number of patients received vasopressors via peripheral catheter, and the results may be limited for this class of therapies. Fourth, 96% of all catheters in this study were placed using ultrasound-guided technique in the upper arm and the risk of failure and complications due to vesicant infusion may not be the same as traditionally placed catheters or with ultrasound-guidance for alternate locations. As there is limited existing literature for all peripheral catheters on this topic, we could not exclusively focus on ultrasound-guided insertions in the discussion section. Finally, as many catheters failed outside of the daily assessment time periods, there was heavy reliance and potential inaccuracies on nursing documentation regarding line complications and etiology of failure.
Discussion
While caustic infusates are commonly delivered via peripheral catheters, the impact of this practice on catheter failure is largely unknown. In fact, as far as we are aware, this is the first investigation that has evaluated vesicant use in peripheral catheters with the primary focus on catheter failure. While on the surface results indicate that any use of caustic infusates may increase the likelihood of PIVC failure, when time of administration was considered in the survival analysis, we determined that caustic infusates did not increase the risk of PIVC failure. When assessing catheter failure by catheter length, the longer 2.5 inch catheter was less likely to experience failure than the shorter 1.88 inch catheter. While the impact of IV length on catheter failure has not previously been specifically evaluated in the setting of vesicant usage, most studies only describe short-term (less than 24 hours) infusions of vesicants with standard length PIVCs compared to longer infusion durations with longer peripheral midline catheters suggesting a benefit of longer catheters [21,22].
Interestingly, the risk of catheter failure was also not significantly impacted by the number of caustic infusate doses administered. This dose-dependent relationship of caustic infusates and complications/failure hasn’t been previously described in the current literature. In regards to specific infusates, vancomycin, non-ionic Iodine-based contrast, and dextrose 50% were the most commonly used caustic infusates in our cohort and did not significantly enhance the risk of early line failure in both catheter types. The use of vancomycin via peripheral IV route is a heavily debated topic with no clear recommendation. Mowry described increased rates of phlebitis, thrombosis, and extravasation when vancomycin is administered peripherally [15]. On the other hand, Caparas et al. found that midlines had a slightly higher rate of complications than PICC lines for short-term vancomycin treatment (less than 6 days), but found no difference in the rate of phlebitis or thrombosis [23]. Based on our results, the risk of premature PIVC failure is insignificant with these vesicants and US-guided PIVCs may be considered even when multiple doses are required.
In addition to poor catheter survival outcomes, the safety of delivering caustic infusions via PIVCs also needs consideration. Current safety guidelines on use of peripheral catheters for vesicants and irritants are vague and without clear direction. The Infusion Nursing Society standards of practice recommends cautious infusion of vesicants and irritants via peripheral route with a hard-stop only for continuous vesicant therapy [13]. The MAGIC guidelines on the other hand do not recommend the peripheral route for non-peripherally compatible infusates [24]. The limited existing literature also provides little concrete evidence regarding patient safety with this practice and is uniquely focused on the complications of extravasation and local tissue injury. In our study sample, the risk of extravasation was not insignificant. While there were 10 extravasation events, fortunately no patients required invasive therapies for treatment. Similarly, the evidence suggests extravasation events in PIVCs are not an insignificant occurrence. A systematic review assessing the safety of PIVCs for vasopressors included 1382 patients found the incidence of extravasation was 3.4% (ranging from 2.3% to 5.5%) with 5.5% in the only prospective study included in the analysis [21,25,26]. While these rates may seem low, these adverse events are still substantially more common in PIVCs compared to central venous catheters CVCs. In one large systematic review, authors found 325 distinct events of local tissue injury and/or extravasation with 318 (97.8%) events occurring in the PIVC group compare to just 7 (2.2%) events in the CVC group [1]. Notably, data exploring other complications such as phlebitis, thrombosis, and infection when vesicants are used via peripherals is sparse. To gain a more complete perspective into the safety profile of vesicant use via US-guided PIVCs, further research is required.
Vesicant usage does not significantly increase the risk of PIVC failure even when multiple doses are needed. Ultrasound-guided PIVCs represent a pragmatic option when vesicant therapy is anticipated. Nevertheless, it is notable that overall PIVC failure rates remain high and other safety events related to vesicant use should be considered when clinicians make vascular access decisions for patients.
Supporting information
(DOCX)
(DOCX)
(DOCX)
Data Availability
Due to legal restrictions, data are available from the Beaumont Institutional Data Access/Ethics Committee. Please contact the corresponding author: amit.bahl@beaumont.edu or IRB administrative manager: lynne.paul@beaumont.org if you are a researcher that meets criteria for access to confidential data.
Funding Statement
The authors received no specific funding for this work.
References
- 1.Loubani OM, Green RS. A systematic review of extravasation and local tissue injury from administration of vasopressors through peripheral intravenous catheters and central venous catheters. Journal of Critical Care. 2015;30(3). doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2015.01.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Dick-Perez, R., & Herrera, S. (n.d.). American College of Emergency Physicians. Retrieved from https://www.acep.org/how-we-serve/sections/critical-care-medicine/news/july-2017/peripherally-versus-centrally-administered-potent-vasopressors-in-the-icu/. Accessed December 2020.
- 3.Helm RE, Flint LM, Klemperer JD, Klausner JD, Huang E. Accepted but unacceptable. Journal of Infusion Nursing. 2019;42(3):149–50. doi: 10.1097/NAN.0000000000000324 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Costantino TG, Parikh AK, Satz WA, Fojtik JP. Ultrasonography-guided peripheral intravenous access versus traditional approaches in patients with difficult intravenous access. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2005;46(5):456–61. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2004.12.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Wallis MC, McGrail M, Webster J, Marsh N, Gowardman J, Playford EG, et al. Risk factors for peripheral intravenous catheter failure: A multivariate analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology. 2014;35(1):63–8. doi: 10.1086/674398 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Kache S, Patel S, Chen N-W, Qu L, Bahl A. Doomed peripheral intravenous catheters: Bad outcomes are similar for emergency department and Inpatient placed catheters: A retrospective medical record review. The Journal of Vascular Access. 2020;112972982097425. doi: 10.1177/1129729820974259 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Hawes ML. A proactive approach to combating venous depletion in the hospital setting. Journal of Infusion Nursing. 2007;30(1):33–44. doi: 10.1097/00129804-200701000-00006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Greig JM. Septic discitis and other complications of peripheral venous cannulation. QJM. 2002;95(6):412–3. doi: 10.1093/qjmed/95.6.412 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Doellman D, Hadaway L, Bowe-Geddes LA, Franklin M, LeDonne J, Papke-O’Donnell L, et al. Infiltration and extravasation. Journal of Infusion Nursing. 2009;32(4):203–11. doi: 10.1097/NAN.0b013e3181aac042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Hadaway L. Short peripheral intravenous catheters and infections. Journal of Infusion Nursing. 2012;35(4):230–40. doi: 10.1097/NAN.0b013e31825af099 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Keleekai NL, Schuster CA, Murray CL, King MA, Stahl BR, Labrozzi LJ, et al. Improving nurses’ peripheral intravenous catheter insertion knowledge, confidence, and skills using a simulation-based blended learning program. Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare. 2016;11(6):376–84. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Lim S, Gangoli G, Adams E, Hyde R, Broder MS, Chang E, et al. Increased clinical and economic burden associated with peripheral intravenous catheter–related complications: Analysis of a US hospital discharge database. INQUIRY: The Journal of Health Care Organization, Provision, and Financing. 2019;56:004695801987556. doi: 10.1177/0046958019875562 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Gorski L, Hadaway L, Hagle M, Broadhurst D, Clare S, Kleidon T, et al. (2021) Infusion Therapy Standards of Practice, 8th Edition. Journal of Infusion Nursing. 2021;44(1S):S1–S224. doi: 10.1097/NAN.0000000000000396 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Jones RK. Short peripheral catheter quality and economics. Journal of Infusion Nursing. 2018;41(6):365–71. doi: 10.1097/NAN.0000000000000303 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Mowry JL, Hartman LS. Intravascular thrombophlebitis related to the peripheral infusion of amiodarone and vancomycin. Western Journal of Nursing Research. 2010;33(3):457–71. doi: 10.1177/0193945910380212 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Rupp ME, Tandon H, Danielson P, Cavalieri RJ, Sayles H. Peripheral intravenous catheters–“they don’t get no respect.” Open Forum Infectious Diseases. 2017;4(suppl_1). [Google Scholar]
- 17.Alexandrou E, Ray-Barruel G, Carr PJ, Frost SA, Inwood S, Higgins N, et al. Use of short peripheral intravenous catheters: Characteristics, management, and Outcomes Worldwide. Journal of Hospital Medicine. 2018;13(5). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Doyle GR, McCutcheon JA. Intravenous Fluid Therapy. In: Clinical procedures for safer patient care. Vancouver, BC: BC Open Textbook Project; 2015. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Cardenas-Garcia J, Schaub KF, Belchikov YG, Narasimhan M, Koenig SJ, Mayo PH. Safety of peripheral intravenous administration of vasoactive medication. Journal of Hospital Medicine. 2015;10(9):581–5. doi: 10.1002/jhm.2394 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Bahl A, Hijazi M, Chen N-W, Lachapelle-Clavette L, Price J. Ultralong versus standard long peripheral intravenous catheters: A randomized controlled trial of ultrasonographically guided catheter survival. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2020;76(2):134–42. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2019.11.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Tian DH, Smyth C, Keijzers G, Macdonald SPJ, Peake S, Udy A, et al. Safety of peripheral administration of vasopressor medications: A systematic review. Emergency Medicine Australasia. 2019;32(2):220–7. doi: 10.1111/1742-6723.13406 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Spiegel RJ, Eraso D, Leibner E, Thode H, Morley EJ, Weingart S. The utility of midline intravenous catheters in critically ill emergency department patients. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2020;75(4):538–45. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2019.09.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Caparas JV, Hu J-P. Safe administration of vancomycin through a novel midline catheter: A randomized, prospective clinical trial. The Journal of Vascular Access. 2014;15(4):251–6. doi: 10.5301/jva.5000220 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Moureau N, Chopra V. Indications for peripheral, midline, and central catheters: Summary of the Michigan appropriateness guide for intravenous catheters recommendations. Journal of the Association for Vascular Access. 2016;21(3):140–8. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Medlej K, Kazzi AA, El Hajj Chehade A, Saad Eldine M, Chami A, Bachir R, et al. Complications from administration of vasopressors through peripheral venous catheters: An observational study. The Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2018;54(1):47–53. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2017.09.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Lewis T, Merchan C, Altshuler D, Papadopoulos J. Safety of the peripheral administration of Vasopressor Agents. Journal of Intensive Care Medicine. 2017;34(1):26–33. doi: 10.1177/0885066616686035 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]