The longer the catheter, the lower the risk of complications: Results of the HERITAGE study comparing long peripheral and midline catheters.

BACKGROUND: Although widely used in clinical practice, long peripheral (LPCs) and midline catheters (MCs) are often misclassified because of their similar characteristics. Comparative studies on these devices are lacking. This study aimed to explore complications risks in polyurethane LPCs and MCs. METHODS: Prospective cohort study. Catheter-failure within 30days was the primary outcome, catheter-related bloodstream infection (CR-BSI), thrombosis, and fibroblastic sleeve were secondary outcomes. The average number of drugs infused per day was computed to measure the overall intensity of catheters' use. RESULTS: The catheter-failure incidence was 5.7 and 3.4/1,000 catheter-days for LPCs and MCs, respectively. MCs were associated with an adjusted lower risk of catheter-failure (hazard ratio 0.311, 95% confidence interval 0.106-0.917, P = .034). The daily number of drugs infused was higher for MCs (P < .001) and was associated with a greater risk catheter-failure risk (P = .021). Sensitivity analysis showed a decreased catheter-failure risk for MCs starting from day-10 from positioning. The incidence of CR-BSI (0.9 vs 0.0/1,000 catheter-days), thrombosis (8.7 vs 3.5/1,000 catheter-days), and fibroblastic sleeve (14.0 vs 8.1/1,000 catheters-days) was higher for LPC catheters. CONCLUSIONS: Despite more intensive drug administration, MCs were associated with a longer uncomplicated indwelling time.

Complications associated to midline- and long peripheral catheters in adults. Systematic review of literature and proposal for a standardized model for data collection.

INTRODUCTION: Long peripheral catheters (LPCs) and midline catheters (MCs) are indiscriminately labelled with different names, leading to misclassifications both in primary and secondary studies. The available studies used different methods to report the incidence of catheter-related complications, affecting the possibility of properly comparing the catheter outcomes. The aim of this review was to explore the complications related to LPCs and MCs after reclassifying according to their length. METHODS: Systematic literature review based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, conducted on PubMed, Scopus and CINAHL databases. The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Data regarding LPCs and MCs were compared. Catheter outcomes were classified into major and minor complications, recomputed and reported as cases/1000 catheter-days. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included. Over-half of the devices were correctly labelled by the authors, misclassifications affected particularly LPCs improperly labelled MCs. The cumulative incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections was 0.3 and 0.4/1000 catheter-days, that of symptomatic catheter-related thrombosis was 0.9 and 1.8/1000 catheter-days for MCs and LPCs, respectively. Minor complications and catheter failure were higher for LPCs. CONCLUSIONS: A misclassification exists in the labelling of MCs and LPCs. A widespread heterogeneity of diagnostic criteria adopted to classify the catheters' outcomes was found, exposing the risk of misestimating the incidence of complications and undermining the possibility of effectively comparing results of the published research. We proposed a list of definitions and relevant variables as a first step toward the development of standardized criteria to be adopted for research purposes.

The selection of the suitable long peripheral catheter in DIVA patients: The significance of ultrasonography.

BACKGROUND: There are several types of LPC (long peripheral catheters) that vary in length, size, insertion method, and cost. The aim of the study was to evaluate whether ultrasonography can be useful for the selection of the suitable LPC in DIVA (difficult intravenous access) patients. METHODS: Based on the ultrasonographic examination, a long peripheral catheter was selected. A 6.4 cm LPC into a vein at a depth of up to 0.5 cm, a 8.5 cm LPC into a vein at a depth up to 1.5 cm, and a 9.8 cm catheter at a depth up to 2 cm using the cannula over needle method. A 12 cm catheter was inserted into the deeper veins using the direct Seldinger method. The catheter diameter was no more than 33% vein diameter. Dwell time and the number of complications of four vascular devices were recorded and compared. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred fifty-six patients, average age 76 years (19-102), 501 men and 655 women, were included in the study. Average dwelling time was 10 days (1-30), there were 136 complications (11.7%). A catheter 6.4 cm long was inserted in 346 (29.8%), 8.5 cm in 140 (12.1%), 9.8 cm in 320 (27, 5%), and 12 cm in 356 (30.6%) patients. There were no significant differences in dwelling time, rate, and type of complications among the four catheters used. CONCLUSION: Our results confirm that ultrasound examination can be useful for the selection of the suitable long peripheral catheter in DIVA patients.

Long peripheral catheters in neonates: filling the gap between short peripheral catheters and epicutaneous-caval catheters?

INTRODUCTION: Non-critically ill neonates at times require venous access to provide peripherally compatible infusions for a limited period (more than 3 days). In such a situation, short peripheral cannulas are not appropriate as their average duration is about 2 days, while-on the other hand-epicutaneous-caval catheters may be too invasive. In these patients, insertion of long peripheral cannulas may be an effective option. METHODS: In this observational retrospective study, we revised all "long" peripheral catheters (4 and 6 cm long) inserted by direct Seldinger technique in our neonatal intensive care unit when peripheral venous access was required for more than 3 days. RESULTS: We inserted 52 2Fr polyurethane catheters, either 4 cm long (n = 25) or 6 cm long (n = 27) in 52 patients. Mean dwelling time was 4.17 days (range 1-12). Most devices were inserted in the cephalic vein (n = 18, 35%), and the rest in the saphenous vein (n = 11, 21%) and other superficial veins. There was no significant correlation between the duration of the device and type of infusion (p = 0.40). The main complications were infiltration (n = 16, 31%) and phlebitis (n = 8, 15%). The rate of removal due to complications was significantly higher (p < 0.01) in neonates with bodyweight <2000 g at the time of insertion. CONCLUSION: In our experience, 2 Fr 4-6 cm long peripheral catheters may be a valid option for neonates requiring peripherally compatible infusions for more than 3 days. The limits of this study are the necessity of training in the technique of insertion and the small size of our sample. The longest dwell was observed in neonates weighing >2000 g at the time of LPC insertion.

The catheter-to-vein ratio at the tip level, not the catheter type, as a risk factor for a catheter failure. A retrospective comparative study of polyurethane midline and long peripheral catheters.

BACKGROUND: In patients requiring a peripheral venous access for more than seven days, long peripheral catheters (LPCs) or midline catheters (MCs) are recommended. Since MCs and LPCs share many characteristics, studies comparing devices made of the same biomaterial are needed. Moreover, a catheter-to-vein ratio >45% at the insertion point has been recognized as a risk factor for catheter related complications, but no study investigated the effect of the catheter-to-vein ratio at the catheter tip level in peripheral venous devices. OBJECTIVES: To compare the catheter failure risk between polyurethane MCs and LPCs, considering the effect of the catheter-to-vein ratio at the tip location. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study. Adult patients having an expected need for a vascular access of more than 7 days and receiving either a polyurethane LPC or MC were included. The catheter uncomplicated indwelling time within 30 days was considered in survival analysis. RESULTS: In a sample of 240 patients, the relative incidences of catheter failure were 5.13 and 3.40 cases for 1,000 catheter days for LPCs and MCs, respectively. In univariate Cox regression, MCs were associated to a statistically significant lower risk of catheter failure (HR 0.330; p = 0.048). After adjusting for other relevant conditions, a catheter-to-vein ratio >45% at the catheter tip location - not the catheter itself - was an independent predictor of a catheter failure (HR 6.762; p = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of catheter failure was strongly associated with a catheter-to-vein ratio > 45% at the catheter tip level, irrespective for having used a polyurethane LPC or MC.

Cost effectiveness of ultrasound-guided long peripheral catheters in difficult vascular access patients.

OBJECTIVE: Peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) placement is a routinely performed invasive procedure in hospital settings with an unacceptably high failure rate that can result in significant costs. This investigation aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of using long peripheral catheters (LPC) versus standard short peripheral catheters (SPC) in the difficult vascular access (DVA) population. METHODS: A secondary analysis was performed of a randomized control trial that compared a 20-gauge 4.78 cm SPC to a 20-gauge 6.35 cm SPC for the endpoint of survival. This study assessed cost-effectiveness of the comparative interventions. Costs associated with increased hospitalization length of stay due to PIVC failure, including labor, materials, equipment, and treatment delays were estimated by utilizing healthcare resource utilization data. Cost-effectiveness of the LPC was analyzed through the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, and the incremental net benefit. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the robustness of the results during the time interval of PIVC insertion. RESULTS: Among the 257 patients, the average total cost for therapy was lower in the LPC group compared to the SPC group ($400 vs $521; mean difference -$121, 95% bootstrapped CI -$461 to $225). A marginally significant absolute difference of complication averted was found for LPC versus SPC (10.8%, p = 0.07). The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for LPC as compared with SPC was -$1123 (95% bootstrapped CI -$8652 to $5964) per complication averted. In a willingness to pay (WTP) analysis, as WTP = $0, the incremental net benefit (INB) $121 was positive, indicating LPC was less costly. Analysis of PIVCs that survived ⩽48 h (n = 134) demonstrated a lower average total cost for therapy among the LPC group ($418 vs $531; mean difference -$113, 95% bootstrapped CI -$507 to $282). Forty-seven of 66 (71.2%) LPCs did not experience a complication, compared with 37 of 68 (54.4%) SPCs, resulting in a significant absolute difference of complication adverted of 16.8% (p = 0.04). In addition, with a positive slope, the INB $113 was positive as WTP = $0, indicating LPC was estimated to be cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: When using ultrasound guidance for vascular access, LPCs are potentially a cost-effective strategy for reducing PIVC complications in DVA patients compared to SPCs. Given this finding, ultrasound-guided LPCs should be routinely considered as first-line among the DVA population in order to improve their overall care and wellbeing.

Comparison of 12-cm versus 6-cm long peripheral catheters in patients with difficult intravenous access (DIVA).

BACKGROUND: Long peripheral catheter is 6-15 cm long vascular device. The aim of the study was to compare the frequency of complications of two types of long peripheral catheters with different length inserted in DIVA patients. METHODS: Under ultrasound navigation 2.7F 6.4 cm or 4Fr 12 cm long peripheral catheter was inserted. Complications of both long peripheral catheters were prospectively observed and their relationship to the patient's age, gender, selected vein, number of punctures and Barthel score system was evaluated. RESULTS: Ninety-three 12 cm and fifty-five 6.4 cm long peripheral catheters were inserted. Median of dwelling time was 8 days for 6.4 cm and 9 days for 12 cm long peripheral catheter. There were 17 (26%) complications in 6.4 cm (38/1000 catheter days) and 15 (16%) in 12 cm catheter (17/1000 catheter days), p = 0.04. The complications of both peripheral catheters were not associated with the age of patients, gender, number of punctures and selected vein for insertion. Unlike 12 cm catheter, the complications of 6.4 cm long peripheral catheter were significantly associated with the result of Barthel scoring system (p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: The frequency of complications was more common with 6,4 cm than with 12 cm catheter.

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

BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous access is no longer limited to the standard intravenous catheter (cannula). Devices varying in length, material and insertion technique, are increasingly accessible. There is substantial variability surrounding the nomenclature and use of these devices in the literature. We wished to understand the attitude of vascular access specialists towards the nomenclature and use of peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs), long peripheral catheters (LPCs) and midline catheters (MCs). METHODS: A 15-question electronic survey was sent to members of the Association of Vascular Access (AVA) regarding the nomenclature and use of PIVCs, LPCs and MCs. RESULTS: A total of 228 participants completed the survey. Approximately two-thirds of respondents use LPCs (65.8%) and MCs (71.9%) in their clinical practice. The most common indication for LPCs was difficult venous access (56.5%), while the most common indication for MCs was medium-term (1-4 weeks) intravenous therapy (62.7%). The majority of participants (57.9%) agreed with the following classification of peripheral intravenous devices:PIVCs: 2 to 6 cm in length, terminating distal to the axilla;LPCs: 6 to 15 cm in length, terminating distal to the axilla;MCs: 15-25 cm in length, terminating in the axilla.Participants suggested that the length of the catheter should be considered a general recommendation, as LPCs and MCs should be primarily differentiated by tip location. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of vascular access specialists from AVA have incorporated LPCs and MCs into their repertoire of peripheral venous access tools. We envisage that their use will increase as the clinical community becomes more familiar with these devices.

Long peripheral catheters for intravenous access in adults and children: A systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Long peripheral catheters are peripheral intravenous catheters of 6-15 cm in length. They are commonly inserted into the forearm, antecubital fossa or upper arm using a direct Seldinger technique. They have proven to be valuable for peripheral intravenous catheters, particularly in patients with difficult intravenous access. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting the use of long peripheral catheters. The following keywords were used: 'long', 'Seldinger', 'guidewire', 'peripheral', 'venous', 'intravenous', 'IV', 'vascular', 'cannula' and 'catheter'. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-one publications were identified; 16 were included in the systematic review. There were 11 adult studies and 5 paediatric studies documenting 1288 long peripheral catheters in 1271 patients. Majority of studies (12/16) were conducted in acute care settings, (emergency department, n = 6; intensive care unit, n = 3; high dependency unit, n = 1; surgical unit, n = 2). The most frequently studied long peripheral catheter was 8 cm in length and 20 G in size. Nine studies recruited patients with difficult intravenous access; 11 studies used ultrasound guidance. Insertion success rate and mean procedural time ranged between 86% and 100% and 8 and 16.8 minutes, respectively. Average catheter duration ranged between 4 and 14.7 days (mean) and 1.1 and 9 days (median). Catheter failure occurred in 4.3-52.5% of long peripheral catheters, with leakage, infiltration and dislodgement being the most frequent causes of failure. In 3 randomised controlled trials, long peripheral catheters outperformed peripheral intravenous catheters in terms of duration and failure rate. CONCLUSION: Long peripheral catheters are safe and reliable in both adults and children. In addition, long peripheral catheters may provide improved quality of care over peripheral intravenous catheters for multi-day intravenous therapy.

Long peripheral catheters for deep arm vein venous access: A systematic review of complications.

PURPOSE: Long peripheral catheters (LPCs) offer a quick, simple and cost-effective alternative for venous access in intensive care patients with difficult venous access, but the decision to use them must be balanced against an assessment of harm. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise reports of complications associated with LPCs. METHODS: The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched systematically for randomised controlled trials, cohort studies and case control studies published in the period 1966 to 24th July 2018 reporting LPC associated occlusion, catheter related blood stream infections, phlebitis and infiltration. Study quality was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomised Studies. The studies were described and participant characteristics; type of catheter; setting; average dwell time; and rates of occlusion, catheter related blood stream infection, phlebitis and infiltration were extracted as summary measures. RESULTS: Five cohort studies and one randomised controlled study, comprising a total of 350 participants, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Dwell time ranged from 1 to 15days and the reported complication rate was 3-14%. The most common complication was catheter occlusion (4%), followed by phlebitis (1%), infiltration (0.9%), and catheter related blood stream infection (0.3%). Significant heterogeneity, particularly in identification and reporting of complications, means results should be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of intervention specific and adequately powered randomised controlled trials investigating LPCs in an intensive care setting. Until the results of such studies are available, LPCs should be used as an alternative to ultrasound-guided PVCs in well monitored acute care environments.

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

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.