Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-hw7sx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T15:17:15.873Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimizing vascular-access device decision-making in the era of midline catheters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 March 2019

Kelly A. Cawcutt Open the ORCID record for Kelly A. Cawcutt [Opens in a new window] ,
Richard J. Hankins ,
Teresa A. Micheels  and
Mark E. Rupp
Kelly A. Cawcutt*
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska
Richard J. Hankins
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska
Teresa A. Micheels
Affiliation:
Department of Infection Control and Epidemiology, Nebraska Medicine, Omaha, Nebraska
Mark E. Rupp
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska
*
Author for correspondence: Kelly A. Cawcutt, Email: kelly.cawcutt@unmc.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This narrative review addresses vascular access device choice from peripheral intravenous catheters through central venous catheters, including the evolving use of midline catheters. The review incorporates best practices, published algorithms, and complications extending beyond CLABSI and phlebitis to assist clinicians in navigating complex vascular access decisions.

Information

Type
Review
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 40 , Issue 6 , June 2019 , pp. 674 - 680
Copyright
© 2019 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved. 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bodenham, A, Babu, S, Bennett, J, et al. Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland: safe vascular access 2016. Anaesthesia 2016;71:573–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, L, Owens, AK, Thompson, J. Defining the specialty of vascular access through consensus: shaping the future of vascular access. J Assoc Vasc Access 2016;21:125–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’grady, NP, Alexander, M, Burns, LA, et al. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Clin Infect Dis 2011;52(9):e162–e193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chopra, V, Flanders, SA, Saint, S, et al. The Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC): results from a multispecialty panel using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. Ann Intern Med 2015;163 Suppl 6:S1–S40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simonov, M, Pittiruti, M, Rickard, CM, Chopra, V. Navigating venous access: a guide for hospitalists. J Hosp Med 2015;10:471–478.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dariushnia, SR, Wallace, MJ, Siddiqi, NH, et al. Quality improvement guidelines for central venous access. J Vasc Intervent Radiol 2010;21:976–981.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moureau, N, Sigl, G, Hill, M. How to establish an effective midline program: a case study of 2 hospitals. J Assoc Vasc Access 2015;20:179–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marschall, J, Mermel, LA, Fakih, M, et al. Strategies to prevent central line–associated bloodstream infections in acute care hospitals: 2014 update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;35:753–771.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adams, DZ, Little, A, Vinsant, C, Khandelwal, S. The midline catheter: a clinical review. J Emerg Med 2016;51:252–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caparas, JV, Hu, J-P. Safe administration of vancomycin through a novel midline catheter: a randomized, prospective clinical trial. J Vasc Access 2014;15:251–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGee, DC, Gould, MK. Preventing complications of central venous catheterization. New Engl J Med 2003;348:1123–1133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eisen, LA, Narasimhan, M, Berger, JS, Mayo, PH, Rosen, MJ, Schneider, RF. Mechanical complications of central venous catheters. J Intensive Care Med 2006;21:40–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lefrant, J-Y, Muller, L, De La Coussaye, J-E, et al. Risk factors of failure and immediate complication of subclavian vein catheterization in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med 2002;28:1036–1041.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gonsalves, CF, Eschelman, DJ, Sullivan, KL, DuBois, N, Bonn, J. Incidence of central vein stenosis and occlusion following upper extremity PICC and port placement. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2003;26:123–127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mermel, LA. Short-term peripheral venous catheter–related bloodstream infections: a systematic review. Clin Infect Dis 2017;65:1757–1762.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zingg, W, Pittet, D. Peripheral venous catheters: an under-evaluated problem. Int J Antimicrob Agent 2009;34:S38–S42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rupp, ME, Tandon, H, Danielson, P, Cavalieri, RJ, Sayles, H. Peripheral intravenous catheters–“they don’t get no respect.” ID Week 2017 website. https://idsa.confex.com/idsa/2017/webprogram/Paper65660.html. Published 2017. Accessed February 28, 2019.Google Scholar
Pikwer, A, Åkeson, J, Lindgren, S. Complications associated with peripheral or central routes for central venous cannulation. Anaesthesia 2012;67:65–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xu, T, Kingsley, L, DiNucci, S, et al. Safety and utilization of peripherally inserted central catheters versus midline catheters at a large academic medical center. Am J Infect Control 2016;44:1458–1461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharp, R, Esterman, A, McCutcheon, H, Hearse, N, Cummings, M. The safety and efficacy of midlines compared to peripherally inserted central catheters for adult cystic fibrosis patients: a retrospective, observational study. Int J Nurs Stud 2014;51:694–702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mushtaq, A, Navalkele, B, Kaur, M, et al. Comparison of complications in midlines versus central venous catheters: are midlines safer than central venous lines? Am J Infect Control 2018;46:788–792.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Infusion Nurses Society. Infusion Nursing Standards of Practice (2011), vol. 34. Norwood, MA: Untreed Reads; 2011.Google Scholar
Caparas, JV, Hu, J. Midline administration of long-term intravenous vancomycin. http://3g033q44pk4o4eo9td3bwjsx.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/Caparas-Long-Term-Vancomycin.pdf. Published 2016. Accessed February 28, 2019.Google Scholar
Roszell, S, Jones, C. Intravenous administration issues: a comparison of intravenous insertions and complications in vancomycin versus other antibiotics. J Infusion Nurs 2010;33:112–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caparas, JV, Hung, H-S. Vancomycin administration through a novel midline catheter: summary of a 5-year, 1086-patient experience in an urban community hospital. Assoc Vasc Access 2017;22:38–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorski, LA, Hagle, ME, Bierman, S. Intermittently delivered IV medication and pH: reevaluating the evidence. J Infus Nurs 2015;38:27–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gorski, L. A., Hadaway, L., Hagle, M., McGoldrick, M., Orr, M., Doellman, D. 2016 Infusion therapy standards of practice. J Infus Nurs 2016b;39 Suppl 1:S1–S159.Google Scholar
Gorski, LA, Stranz, M, Cook, LS, et al. Development of an evidence-based list of noncytotoxic vesicant medications and solutions. J Infus Nurs 2017;40:26–40.Google ScholarPubMed
Maki, DG, Kluger, DM, Crnich, CJ. The risk of bloodstream infection in adults with different intravascular devices: a systematic review of 200 published prospective studies. Mayo Clin Proc 2006;81:1159–1171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Control CfD, Prevention. Vital signs: central line-associated blood stream infections—United States, 2001, 2008, and 2009. Ann Emerg Med 2011;58:447–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fagan, RP, Edwards, JR, Park, BJ, Fridkin, SK, Magill, SS. Incidence trends in pathogen-specific central line–associated bloodstream infections in US intensive care units, 1990–2010. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:893–899.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merrer, J, De Jonghe, B, Golliot, F, et al. Complications of femoral and subclavian venous catheterization in critically ill patients: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2001;286:700–707.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marik, PE, Flemmer, M, Harrison, W. The risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection with femoral venous catheters as compared to subclavian and internal jugular venous catheters: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 2012;40:2479–2485.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nolan, ME, Yadav, H, Cawcutt, KA, Cartin-Ceba, R. Complication rates among peripherally inserted central venous catheters and centrally inserted central catheters in the medical intensive care unit. J Crit Care 2016;31:238–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Safdar, N, Maki, DG. Risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection with peripherally inserted central venous catheters used in hospitalized patients. Chest 2005;128:489–495.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raad, I, Costerton, W, Sabharwal, U, Sadlowski, M, Anaissie, E, Bodey, GP. Ultrastructural analysis of indwelling vascular catheters: a quantitative relationship between luminal colonization and duration of placement. J Infect Dis 1993;168:400–407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holroyd, JL, Vasilopoulos, T, Rice, MJ, Rand, KH, Fahy, BG. Incidence of central venous catheter hub contamination. J Crit Care 2017;39:162–168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chopra, V, Anand, S, Hickner, A, et al. Risk of venous thromboembolism associated with peripherally inserted central catheters: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2013;382:311–325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grove, JR, Pevec, WC. Venous thrombosis related to peripherally inserted central catheters. J Vasc Intervent Radiol 2000;11:837–840.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ignatov, A, Hoffman, O, Smith, B, et al. An 11-year retrospective study of totally implanted central venous access ports: complications and patient satisfaction. Eur J Surg Oncol 2009;35:241–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polak, J, Anderson, D, Hagspiel, K, Mungovan, J. Peripherally inserted central venous catheters: factors affecting patient satisfaction. Am J Roentgenol 1998;170:1609–1611.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoffmann, TC, Montori, VM, Del Mar, C. The connection between evidence-based medicine and shared decision making. JAMA 2014;312:1295–1296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rupp, ME, Cassling, K, Faber, H, et al. Hospital-wide assessment of compliance with central venous catheter dressing recommendations. Am J Infect Control. 2013;41:89–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed