Since several innovations have recently changed the criteria of choice and management of peripheral venous access (new devices, new techniques of insertion, new recommendations for maintenance), the WoCoVA Foundation (WoCoVA = World Conference on Vascular Access) has developed an international Consensus with the following objectives: to propose a clear and useful classification of the currently available peripheral venous access devices; to clarify the proper indication of central versus peripheral venous access; discuss the indications of the different peripheral venous access devices (short peripheral cannulas vs long peripheral cannulas vs midline catheters); to define the proper techniques of insertion and maintenance that should be recommended today. To achieve these purposes, WoCoVA have decided to adopt a European point of view, considering some relevant differences of terminology between North America and Europe in this area of venous access and the need for a common basis of understanding among the experts recruited for this project. The ERPIUP Consensus (ERPIUP = European Recommendations for Proper Indication and Use of Peripheral venous access) was designed to offer systematic recommendations for clinical practice, covering every aspect of management of peripheral venous access devices in the adult patient: indication, insertion, maintenance, prevention and treatment of complications, removal. Also, our purpose was to improve the standardization of the terminology, bringing clarity of definition, and classification.
HelmREKlausnerJDKlempererJD, et al. Accepted but Unacceptable: peripheral IV Catheter Failure. J Infus Nurs2015; 38(3): 189–203.
2.
VallecocciaMSDe PascaleGTaraschiC, et al. Closed vs open systems: when should short peripheral intravenous catheters be the first choice?J Hosp Infect2015; 89(1): 72–73.
3.
KanjiSLamJGoddardRD, et al. Inappropriate medication administration practices in canadian adult ICUs: multicenter, cross-sectional observational study. Ann Pharmacother2013; 47(5): 637–643.
4.
WallisMCMcGrailMWebsterJ, et al. Risk factors for peripheral intravenous catheter failure: a multivariate analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2014; 35(1): 63–68.
5.
VizcarraCCassuttCCorbittN, et al. Recommendations for improving safety practices with short peripheral catheters. J Infus Nurs2014; 37(2): 121–124.
6.
WittingMDMoayediSYangZ, et al. Advanced intravenous access: technique choices, pain scores, and failure rates in a local registry. Am J Emerg Med2016; 34(3): 553–557.
7.
PiperRCarrPJKelseyLJ, et al. The mechanistic causes of peripheral intravenous catheter failure based on a parametric computational study. Sci Rep2018; 8: 3441.
8.
BertoglioSvan BoxtelTGoossensGA, et al. Improving outcomes of short peripheral vascular access in oncology and chemotherapy administration. J Vasc Access2017; 18(2): 89–96.
9.
LovedayHPWilsonJAPrattRJ, et al. epic3: national evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections in NHS hospitals in England. J Hosp Infect2014; 86(S1): S1–S70.
10.
GorskiLAHadawayLHagleME, et al. Infusion Therapy Standards of Practice, 8th Edition.J Infus Nurs2021; 44(1SSuppl 1): S1–S224.
11.
TuffahaHWRickardCMWebsterJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of clinically indicated versus routine replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters. Appl Health Econ Health Policy2014; 12(1): 51–58.
12.
WebsterJOsborneSRickardCM, et al. Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2015; 14(8): CD007798.
13.
GorskiLAStranzMCookLS, et al. Development of an evidence-based list of noncytotoxic vesicant medications and solutions. J Infus Nurs2017; 40(1): 26–40.
14.
PittirutiMScoppettuoloG. “The GAVeCeLT Manual of PICC and Midlines”. Published by EDRA. Milano, 2016.
15.
QinKRNatarajaRMPacilliM.Long peripheral catheters: is it time to address the confusion?J Vasc Access2019; 20(5): 457–460.
16.
Van LoonFHPuijnLAHoutermanS, et al. Development of the A-DIVA scale: a clinical predictive scale to identify difficult intravenous access in adult patients based on clinical observations. Medicine (Baltimore)2016; 95(16): e3428.
17.
Rodriguez-CaleroMAFernandez-FernandezIMolero-BallesterLJ, et al. Risk factors for difficult peripheral venous cannulation in hospitalised patients. Protocol for a multicentre case–control study in 48 units of eight public hospitals in Spain. BMJ Open2018; 8(2): e020420.
18.
SebbaneMClaretPGLefebvreS, et al. Predicting peripheral venous access difficulty in the emergency department using body mass index and a clinical evaluation of venous accessibility. J Emerg Med2013; 44(2): 299–305.
19.
ChopraVFlandersSASaintS, et al. The Michigan appropriateness guide for intravenous catheters (MAGIC): results from a multispecialty panel using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. Ann Internal Med2015; 163(6 Suppl): S1–S40.
20.
GAVeCeLT: Sistema esperto ‘DAV-Expert’ per la scelta dell’accesso venoso. GAVeCeLT website. http://davexpert.gavecelt.it (2018).
21.
MoureauNChopraV.Indications for peripheral, midline and central catheters: summary of the MAGIC recommendations. Br J Nurs2016; 25(8): S15–S24.
22.
NSW Government Health Guidelines Summary. Peripheral Intravenous Cannula (PIVC) Insertion and Post Insertion Care in Adult Patients. 2013; NSW Government Health Guideline Summary.
23.
AdamsDZLittleAVinsantC, et al. The midline catheter: a clinical review. J Emerg Med2016; 51(3): 252–258.
24.
DeutschGBSathyanarayanaASinghN.Ultrasound-guided placement of midline catheters in the surgical intensive care unit: a cost-effective proposal for timely central line removal. J Surg Res2014; 191(1): 1–5.
25.
DeVriesMLeeJHoffmanL.Infection free midline catheter implementation at a community hospital (2 years). Am J Infect Control2019; 47(9): 1118–1121.
GilardiEGiannuzziRWoldeSellasieK, et al. Mini-midline in difficult intravenous access patients in emergency department: a prospective analysis. J Vasc Access2019; 24: 1129729819883129.
29.
OwenK.The use of 8 Cm midlines in community IV therapy. Br J Nurs2014; 23(S19): S18–S20.
30.
SpiegelRJErasoDLeibnerE, et al. The utility of midline intravenous catheters in critically Ill emergency department patients. Ann Emerg Med. 2019; 19: 31236–31273.
31.
González LópezJLArribi VilelaAFernández del PalacioE, et al. Indwell times, complications and costs of open vs closed safety peripheral intravenous catheters: a randomized study. J Hosp Infect2014; 86(2): 117–126.
32.
TamuraNAbeSHagimotoK, et al. Unfavorable peripheral intravenous catheter replacements can be reduced using an integrated closed intravenous catheter system. J Vasc Access2014; 15(4): 257–263.
33.
BodenhamABabuSBennettJ, et al. Association of anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland: safe vascular access 2016. Anaesthesia2016; 71(5): 573–585.
34.
BallieuPBesharatianYAnsariS.Safety and feasibility of phenylephrine administration through a peripheral intravenous catheter in a neurocritical care unit. J Intensive Care Med2019; 22: 885066619887111.
35.
Cardenas-GarciaJSchaubKFBelchikovYG, et al. Safety of peripheral intravenous administration of vasoactive medication. J Hosp Med2015; 10(9): 581–585.
36.
LoubaniOMGreenRS.A systematic review of extravasation and local tissue injury from administration of vasopressors through peripheral intravenous catheters and central venous catheters. J Crit Care2015; 30(3): 9–17.
37.
RippeyJCCarrPJCookeM, et al. Predicting and preventing peripheral intravenous cannula insertion failure in the emergency department: clinician ‘gestalt’ wins again. Emerg Med Australas2016; 28(6): 658–665.
38.
YoshidaYHoshinoSAisuN, et al. Administration of chemotherapy via the median cubital vein without implantable central venous access ports: port-free chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Int J Clin Oncol2015; 20(2): 332–337.
39.
AghdassiSJSGeffersCBehnkeM, et al. Management of peripheral venous catheters and implementation of guidelines in Germany: a national survey. J Hosp Infect2019; 27(19): 30546–30548.
40.
MastersBHickishTCidonEU.A midline for oxaliplatin infusion: the myth of safety devices. BMJ Case Rep2014; 2014: bcr2014204360.
41.
RicardJDSalomonLBoyerA, et al. Central or peripheral catheters for initial venous access of ICU patients: a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care Med2013; 41(9): 2108–2115.
42.
SalazarEGarciaSMiguelR.Ultrasound-guided peripheral venous access for therapeutic apheresis procedures reduces need for central venous catheters. J Clin Apher2017; 32(4): 266–269.
43.
PatelSAAraujoTRodriguezLP, et al. Long peripheral catheters: a retrospective review of major complications. J Hosp Med2019; 14(12): 758–760.
ShokoohiHBonifaceKMcCarthyM, et al. Ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous access program is associated with a marked reduction in central venous catheter use in noncritically Ill emergency department patients. Ann Emerg Med2013; 61(2): 198–203.
46.
CaparasJVHuJP.Safe administration of vancomycin through a novel midline catheter: a randomized, prospective clinical trial. J Vasc Access2014; 15(4): 251–256.
47.
ScoppettuoloGPittirutiMPitoniS, et al. Ultrasound-guided “short” midline catheters for difficult venous access in the emergency department: a retrospective analysis. Int J Emerg Med2016; 9(1): 3.
48.
SharpREstermanAMcCutcheonH, et al. The safety and efficacy of midlines compared to peripherally inserted central catheters for adult cystic fibrosis patients: a retrospective, observational study. Int J Nurs Stud2014; 51(5): 694–702.
De ProspoTAttiniADe GiorgiR. The assessment of the effectiveness of long vs standard-length catheters in reducing complications: a randomized controlled trial. Assist Inferm Ric2015; 34(3): 116–124.
51.
PathakRPatelAEnuhH, et al. The incidence of central line-associated bacteremia after the introduction of midline catheters in a ventilator unit population. Infect Dis Clin Pract2015; 23(3): 131–134.
52.
FieldsJMPielaNEAuAK, et al. Risk factors associated with difficult venous access in adult ED patients. Am J Emerg Med2014; 32(10): 1179–1182.
53.
CarrPJRippeyJCCookeML, et al. Development of a clinical prediction rule to improve peripheral intravenous cannulae first attempt success in the emergency department and reduce post insertion failure rates: the Vascular Access Decisions in the Emergency Room (VADER) study protocol. BMJ Open2016; 6(2): e009196.
54.
CicoliniGManzoliLSimonettiV, et al. Phlebitis risk varies by peripheral venous catheter site and increases after 96 hours: a large multi-centre prospective study. J Adv Nurs2014; 70(11): 2539–2549.
55.
SimonovMPittirutiMRickardCM, et al. Navigating venous access: a guide for hospitalists. J Hosp Med2015; 10(7): 471–478.
56.
BenayaASchwartzYKoryR, et al. Relative incidence of phlebitis associated with peripheral intravenous catheters in the lower versus upper extremities. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis2015; 34(5): 913–916.
57.
DeckerKIrelandSO’SullivanL, et al. Peripheral intravenous catheter insertion in the emergency department. Australas Emerg Nurs J2016; 19(3): 138–142.
58.
FreixasNBellaFLimónE, et al. Impact of a multimodal intervention to reduce bloodstream infections related to vascular catheters in non-ICU wards: a multicentre study. Clin Microbiol Infect2013; 19(9): 838–844.
59.
NicholsonJHillJ.Cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive: a new tool for the vascular access toolbox. Br J Nurs2019; 28(19): S22–S28.
60.
VenturaRO’LoughlinCVavrikB.Clinical evaluation of a securement device used on midline catheters. Br J Nurs2016; 25(14): S16–S22.
61.
RickardCMMarshNWebsterJ, et al. Securing all intravenous devices effectively in hospitalised patients–the SAVE trial: study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open2015; 5(9): e008689.
62.
KuleAHangBBahlA.Preventing the collapse of a peripheral vein during cannulation: an evaluation of various tourniquet techniques on vein compressibility. J Emerg Med2014; 46(5): 659–666.
63.
LampertiMBodenhamARPittirutiM, et al. International evidence-based recommendations on ultrasound-guided vascular access. Intensive Care Med2012; 38: 1105–1117.
64.
BlancoP.Ultrasound-guided peripheral venous cannulation in critically ill patients: a practical guideline. Ultrasound J2019; 11(1): 1–7.
65.
BrideyCThillyNLefevreT, et al. Ultrasound-guided versus landmark approach for peripheral intravenous access by critical care nurses: a randomized controlled study. BMJ Open2018; 8(6): e020220.
66.
ChiricoloGBalkARaioC, et al. Higher success rates and satisfaction in difficult venous access patients with a guide wire-associated peripheral venous catheter. Am J Emerg Med2015; 33(12): 1742–1744.
67.
EganGHealyDO’NeillH, et al. Ultrasound guidance for difficult peripheral venous access: systematic review and meta-analysis. Emerg Med J. 2013; 30(7): 521–526.
68.
EricksonCSLiaoMMHaukoosJS, et al. Ultrasound-guided small vessel cannulation: long-axis approach is equivalent to short-axis in novice sonographers experienced with landmark-based cannulation. West J Emerg Med2014; 15(7): 824–830.
69.
Franco-SadudRSchnobrichDMathewsBK, et al. Recommendations on the use of ultrasound guidance for central and peripheral vascular access in adults: a position statement of the society of hospital medicine. J Hosp Med2019; 6(14): E1–E22.
70.
GaoYBYanJHMaJM, et al. Effects of long axis in-plane vs short axis out-of-plane techniques during ultrasound-guided vascular access. Am J Emerg Med2016; 34(5): 778–783.
71.
GottliebMHolladayDPeksaGD.Comparison of short- vs long-axis technique for ultrasound-guided peripheral line placement: a systematic review and meta- analysis. Cureus2018; 10(5): e2718.
72.
İsmailoğluEGZaybakAAkarcaFK, et al. The effect of the use of ultrasound in the success of peripheral venous catheterization. Int Emerg Nurs2015; 23(2): 89–93.
73.
MeyerPCronierPRousseauH, et al. Difficult peripheral venous access: clinical evaluation of a catheter inserted with the Seldinger method under ultrasound guidance. J Crit Care2014; 29(5): 823–827.
74.
MooreCL.Ultrasound first, second, and last for vascular access. J Ultrasound Med2014; 33(7): 1135–1142.
75.
NelsonDJeanmonodRJeanmonodD.Randomized trial of tourniquet vs blood pressure cuff for target vein dilation in ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous access. Am J Emerg Med2014; 32(7): 761–764.
76.
UedaKHusseyP.Dynamic ultrasound-guided short-axis needle tip navigation technique for facilitating cannulation of peripheral veins in obese patients. Anesth Analg2017; 124(3): 831–833.
77.
AsrarMAl-HabaibehAHoudaM.Innovative algorithm to evaluate the capabilities of visual, near infrared, and infrared technologies for the detection of veins for intravenous cannulation. Applied Optic2016; 55(34): 67–75.
78.
AulagnierJHocCMathieuE, et al. Efficacy of accuvein to facilitate peripheral intravenous placement in adults presenting to an emergency department: a randomized clinical trial. Acad Emerg Med2014; 21(8): 858–863.
79.
ChiaoFBResta-FlarerFLesserJ, et al. Vein visualization: patient characteristic factors and efficacy of a new infrared vein finder technology. Br J Anaesth2013; 110(6): 966–971.
80.
GuillonPMakhloufiMBaillieS, et al. Prospective evaluation of venous access difficulty and a near-infrared vein visualizer at four French haemophilia treatment centres. Haemophilia2015; 21(1): 21–26.
81.
JuricSFlisVDebevcM, et al. Towards a low-cost mobile subcutaneous vein detection solution using near-infrared spectroscopy. Scientific World Journal2014; 2014: 365902.
82.
JuricSZalikB.An innovative approach to near-infrared spectroscopy using a standard mobile device and its clinical application in the real-time visualization of peripheral veins. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak2014; 25(14): 1–9.
83.
WangFBehroozAMorrisM, et al. High-contrast subcutaneous vein detection and localization using multispectral imaging. J Biomed Opt2013; 18(5): 50504.
84.
CarrPJHigginsNSCookeML, et al. Vascular access specialist teams for device insertion and prevention of failure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2018; 3(3): CD011429.
85.
Castro-SánchezECharaniEDrumrightLN, et al. Fragmentation of care threatens patient safety in peripheral vascular catheter management in acute care–a qualitative study. PLoS One2014; 14; 9(1): e86167.
86.
Duran-GehringPBryantLReynoldsJA, et al. Ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheter training results in physician-level success for emergency department technicians. J Ultrasound Med2016; 35(11): 2343–2352.
87.
OstrowskiAMMorrisonSO’DonnellJ. Development of a training program in peripherally inserted central catheter placement for certified registered nurse anesthetists using an n-of-1 method. AANA J2019; 87(1): 11–18.
88.
Partovi-DeilamiKNielsenJKMollerAM.Effect of ultrasound-guided placement of difficult-to-place peripheral venous catheters: a prospective study of a training program for nurse anesthetists. AANA J2016; 84(2): 86–92.
89.
SchusterCStahlBMurrayC, et al. Development and testing of an instrument to measure short peripheral catheter insertion confidence. J Infus Nurs2016; 39(3): 159–165.
90.
StuckeyCCurtisMP.Development of a nurse-led ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous program. J Vasc Nurs2019; 37(4): 246–249.
91.
MoureauNLampertiMKellyLJ, et al. Evidence-based consensus on the insertion of central venous access devices: definition of minimal requirements for training. Br J Anaesth2013; 110(3): 347–356.
92.
AustinEDSullivanSBWhittierS, et al. Peripheral intravenous catheter placement is an underrecognized source of staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection. Open Forum Infect Dis2016; 3(2): ofw072.
KowalewskaPMPetrikSMDi FioreAE, et al. Antimicrobial efficacy of a new chlorhexidine-based device against staphylococcus aureus colonization of venous catheters. J Infus Nurs2018; 41(2): 103–112.
95.
MestreGBerbelCTortajadaP, et al. Successful multifaceted intervention aimed to reduce short peripheral venous catheter-related adverse events: a quasi experimental cohort study. Am J Infect Control2013; 41(6): 520–526.
96.
StuartRLCameronDRScottC, et al. Peripheral intravenous catheter-associated Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: more than 5 years of prospective data from two tertiary health services. Med J Aust2013; 198(10): 551–553.
97.
RhodesDChengACMcLellanS, et al. Reducing Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections associated with peripheral intravenous cannulae: successful implementation of a care bundle at a large Australian health service. J Hosp Infect2016; 94(1): 86–91.
98.
BernatchezSF.Care of peripheral venous catheter sites: advantages of transparent film dressings over tape and gauze. JAVA2014; 19(4): 256–261.
99.
KeoghSFlynnJMarshN, et al. Nursing and midwifery practice for maintenance of vascular access device patency. A cross-sectional survey. Int J Nurs Stud2015; 52(11): 1678–1685.
100.
LehnRAGrossJBMcIsaacJH, et al. Needleless connectors substantially reduce flow of crystalloid and red blood cells during rapid infusion. Anesth Analg2015; 120(4): 801–804.
101.
KeoghSMarshNHigginsN, et al. A time and motion study of peripheral venous catheter flushing practice using manually prepared and prefilled flush syringes. J Infus Nurs2014; 37(2): 96–101.
102.
SalibaPCuervoGHorneroA, et al. The impact of flushing with pre-filled saline syringes on the incidence of peripheral venous catheter failure: a quasi-experimental study. J Vasc Access2019; 25: 1129729819888423.
103.
MorisDNMichalinosAVernadakisS.An uncommon complication of a common procedure. Indian J Surg. 2015; 77(S3): 1401–1402.
104.
MarshNWebsterJMihalaG, et al. Devices and dressings to secure peripheral venous catheters to prevent complications. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2015; 12(6): CD011070.
105.
GüntherSCSchwebelCHamidfar-RoyR, et al. Complications of intravascular catheters in ICU: definitions, incidence and severity. A randomized controlled trial comparing usual transparent dressings versus new-generation dressings (the ADVANCED study). Intensive Care Med2016; 42(11): 1753–1765.
106.
MarshNWebsterJFlynnJ, et al. Securement methods for peripheral venous catheters to prevent failure: a randomised controlled pilot trial. J Vasc Access2015; 16(3): 237–244.
107.
BugdenSSheanKScottM, et al. Skin glue reduces the failure rate of emergency department-inserted peripheral intravenous catheters: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Emerg Med2016; 68(2): 196–201.
108.
WebsterJMcGrailMMarshN, et al. Post-infusion phlebitis: incidence and risk factors. Nurs Res Pract2015; 2015: 691934.
109.
Buenfil-VargasMAEspinosa-VitalGRodriguez-SingR, et al. Incidence of adverse events associated to the use of short peripheral venous catheters. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc2015; 53(S3): S310–S315.
110.
PaleseAAmbrosiEFabrisF, et al. Nursing care as a predictor of phlebitis related to insertion of a peripheral venous cannula in emergency departments: findings from a prospective study. J Hosp Infect2016; 92(3): 280–286.
111.
MarshNMihalaGRay-BarruelG, et al. Inter-rater agreement on PIVC- associated phlebitis signs, symptoms and scales. J Eval Clin Pract2015; 21(5): 893–899.
CarrPJRippeyJMooreT, et al. Reasons for removal of emergency department-inserted peripheral intravenous cannulae in admitted patients: a retrospective medical chart audit in Australia. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2016; 37(7): 874–876.
114.
TatsunoKIkedaMWakabayashiY, et al. Clinical features of bloodstream infections associated with peripheral versus central venous catheters. Infect Dis Ther2019; 8(3): 343–352.
115.
XuTKingsleyLDiNucciS, et al. Safety and utilization of peripherally inserted central catheters versus midline catheters at a large academic medical center. Am J Infect Control2016; 44(12): 1458–1461.
116.
ChenAIBalterMLMaguireTJ, et al. 3D near infrared and ultrasound imaging of peripheral blood vessels for real-time localization and needle guidance. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv2016; 9902: 388–396.
117.
GoossensGA.Flushing and locking of venous catheters: available evidence and evidence deficit. Nurs Res Pract2015; 2015: 985686.
118.
ElliSAbbruzzeseCCannizzoL, et al. “Extended subcutaneous route” technique: a quick subcutaneous tunnelling technique for PICC insertion. J Vasc Access2017; 18(3): 269–272.
119.
GiustiviDGidaroABaroniM, et al. Tunneling technique of PICCs and Midline catheters. J Vasc Access 2021:11297298211002579. doi: 10.1177/11297298211002579. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 33726584.
120.
BalsoranoPVirgiliGVillaG, et al. Peripherally inserted central catheter-related thrombosis rate in modern vascular access era-when insertion technique matters: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Vasc Access2020; 21(1): 45–54.
121.
GidaroAVailatiDGemmaM, et al. Retrospective survey from vascular access team Lombardy net in COVID-19 era. J Vasc Access2021:1129729821997252. doi: 10.1177/1129729821997252. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 33618564.
122.
MarnejonTAngeloDAbu AbdouA, et al. Risk factors for upper extremity venous thrombosis associated with peripherally inserted central venous catheters. J Vasc Access. 2012; 13(2): 231–238.
