In 63 evaluable palliative care patients requiring intermittent bolus subcutaneous administration of medication, who were randomly assigned either a standard metal subcutaneous needle or a PTFE (Vialon®) catheter, there was a significantly greater incidence of local reactions at the insertion site with the metal needles (9/30) compared with the PTFE catheters (2/33). Despite this, there was no significant difference between the two in functional survival. Volume of medication injected per day was the best predictor of total time that the subcutaneous lines remained in situ.
Storey P., Hill HH, St Louis RH, Tarver EE. Subcutaneous infusions for control of cancer symptoms . J Pain Symptom Manage1990; 5: 33-41.
2.
Maki DGInfections associated with intravascular lines. In: Swantz M, Remmington J eds. Current topics in clinical infectious disease. New York : McGraw Hill, 1982: 309-63.
3.
Oliver DJ, Sykes NP, Carter RLHistopathological study of subcutaneous drug infusion sites in patients dying of cancer. Lancet1988; i: 478.
4.
Ventafridda V., Spoldi E., Caraceni A. et al. The importance of continuous subcutaneous morphine administration for cancer pain control. Pain Clin1986;1:47-55.
5.
Oliver DJSyringe drivers in palliative care: a review. Palliat Med1988; 2: 21-26.
6.
Macmillan K. , Bruera E., Kuehn N., Selmser P., Macmillan A.A prospective comparison study between a butterfly needle and a teflon cannula for subcutaneous narcotic administration. J Pain Symptom Manage1994; 9: 82-84.
7.
Youssef MS, Atkinson REComparison of Teflon cannulas and metal needles for subcutaneous infusion in terminal care: a pilot study. Br Med J1990; 300: 847.
8.
Oliver DJThe tonicity of solutions used in continuous subcutaneous infusions. Hosp Pharm Pract1990; 3: 158-61.
9.
Thow J., Home P.Insulin injection technique. Br Med J1990 ; 301: 3-4.
