• Emma Bundgaard Nielsen, Louise Antonsen, Camilla Mensel, Nikolaj Milandt, Dalgaard Lars Skov LS Department of Medicine, The Regional Hospital West Jutland, Gl. Landevej 72, 7400 Herning, Denmark., Illum Britta Skov BS Department of Anesthesiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 99, 8200 Aarhus N, Denmark., Hanne Arildsen, and Peter Juhl-Olsen.
• Department of Anesthesiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 99, 8200 Aarhus N, Denmark.
• Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2021 Jan 1; 102: 220-225.

ObjectivesThis study was performed to investigate whether an intravenous (IV) strategy based on new-generation midline catheters is an efficacious alternative to a conventional IV strategy consisting of peripheral venous catheters and central venous catheters, for patients needing IV therapy exceeding 5 days.MethodsThis was a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Patients requiring more than 5 days of IV treatment were randomized to either a midline catheter-based IV strategy or a conventional strategy. The primary endpoint was the composite of the insertion of a central venous catheter (CVC) or the need for four or more peripheral venous catheter (PVC) insertions. The secondary outcomes included catheter dwell times and reasons for premature removal.ResultsOne hundred and twenty patients were included. The fraction of patients receiving four or more PVCs or having a CVC inserted was 12/58 (21%) in the midline group versus 38/58 (66%) in the conventional group (p <  0.001); the number needed to treat was 2.2. The median overall catheter dwell time was 7 days (range 0-60 days) in the midline group and 4 days (range 0-84 days) in the conventional group (p =  0.002).ConclusionIn patients requiring more than 5 days of IV therapy, a midline catheter strategy reduced the need for insertion of a CVC or four or more PVCs.Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

16 keywords...

hide…