Reactions Associated with Midline Catheters for Intravenous Access
Authors: Dennis G. Maki
Journal: Annals of Internal Medicine (1995)

Editorials1 December 1995Reactions Associated with Midline Catheters for Intravenous AccessDennis G. Maki, MDDennis G. Maki, MDUniversity of Wisconsin Medical School Madison, WI 53792.Author, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-123-11-199512010-00013 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Things are not always what they seem.PhaedrusFables (c. 8 A.D.)The prospective study of midline catheters by Mermel and colleagues in this issue [1] reaffirms this ancient truism.Reliable vascular access is one of the most basic and yet essential therapeutic modalities of modern-day health care. More than 175 million intravascular devices of various types are sold in the United States each year [2]. Most are 1.24-inch (3.2-cm) peripheral venous catheters made of Teflon or polyurethane, but the usefulness of these catheters for periods longer than 3 days is limited by a high incidence of infusion phlebitis (in ...References1. Mermel LA, Parenteau S, Tow SM. The risk of midline catheterization in hospitalized patients. A prospective study. Ann Intern Med. 1995; 123:841-4. Google Scholar2. Maki DG. Infections caused by intravascular devices used for infusion therapy: pathogenesis, prevention, and management. In: Bisno AL, Waldvogel FA, eds. Infections Associated with Indwelling Medical Devices. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: ASM Pr; 1994:155-205. Google Scholar3. Maki DG, Ringer M. Risk factors for infusion-related phlebitis with small peripheral venous catheters. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 1991; 114:845-54. Google Scholar4. Ryder MA. Peripheral access options. Surg Clin North Am. 1995; 4:395-427. Google Scholar5. Fontaine PJ. Performance of a new softening expanding midline catheter in home intravenous therapy patients. J Intraven Nurs. 1991; 14:91-9. Google Scholar6. Harwood IR, Greene LM, Kozakowski-Koch JA, Rasor JS. New peripherally inserted midline catheter: a better alternative for intravenous antibiotic therapy in patients with cystic fibrosis. Pediatr Pulmonol. 1992; 12:233-9. Google Scholar7. Pauley SY, Vallande NC, Riley EN, Jenner NM, Gulbinas DG. Catheter-related colonization associated with percutaneous inserted central catheters. J Intraven Nurs. 1993; 16:50-4. Google Scholar8. Bross JE, Tokar L, Frey C, Bowan AM. Survival analysis of the Landmark peripheral intravenous catheter [Abstract]. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1995; 16(Suppl 2):38. Google Scholar9. Rasor JS. Review of catheter-related infection rates: comparison of conventional catheter materials with Aquavene. JVAN. 1991; 1:8-16. Google Scholar10. Hardaway LC, Lawson T. Infusion of IV medications via midline catheters in home care patients: a review of midline catheters and their performances in home care. Infusion. 1995; 1:15-9. Google Scholar11. Kessler DA, Pape SM, Sundwall DN. The Federal regulation of medical devices. N Engl J Med. 1987; 317:357-66. Google Scholar12. Duigon A. The dwell time for peripheral intravenous catheters made of elastomeric hydrogel [Letter]. J Intraven Nurs. 1992; 15:60-1. Google Scholar13. Briars G. Adverse reactions to elastomeric intravenous catheters in adolescents with cystic fibrosis [Letter]. Lancet. 1993; 342:118. Google Scholar14. "Adverse medical device experience reports for Menlo Care from the Device Network. Office of Surveillance and Biometrics, Center for Devices and Radiographic Health, FDA. Obtained under Freedom of Information Act, September 1994." Google Scholar15. Leung PS, Helpern GM, Gerswhin ME. Evaluation of possible histamine release from human peripheral blood cells using an enzyme immunoassay (HRT) with components of intravenous catheters. European Annals of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 1993; 25:1-8. Google Scholar16. Rawlins MD, Thompson JW. Mechanisms of adverse drug reactions. In: Davies DM, ed. Textbook of Adverse Drug Reactions. 4th ed. New York: Oxford Univ Pr; 1991:18-45. Google Scholar17. Lawson T. Adverse events during IV therapy. Journal of Vascular Access Devices. 1995; 1:17-9. Google Scholar18. Maki DG, Rhame FS, Mackel DC, Bennett JV. Nationwide epidemic of septicemia caused by contaminated intravenous products. I. Epidemiologic and clinical features. Am J Med. 1976; 60:471-85. Google Scholar19. Sherertz RJ, Streed SA. Medical devices. Significant risk vs nonsignificant risk. JAMA. 1994; 272:955-6. Google Scholar20. Goldman SA, Kennedy DL, Lieberman R. Clinical therapeutics and the recognition of drug-induced disease. MEDWatch. 1995; June:1-4. Google Scholar21. Johnson JM, Barash D. A review of postmarketing adverse drug experience reporting requirements. Food Drug Cosmetic Law J. 1991; 46:665-72. Google Scholar22. Kessler DA. Introducing MEDWatch. A new approach to reporting medication and device adverse effects and product problems. JAMA. 1993; 269:2765-8. Google Scholar23. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals. Accreditation Manual for Hospitals. Chicago: The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals: 1993. Google Scholar24. Blum DY. Untoward events associated with use of midterm i.v. devices. J Intraven Nurs. 1995; 18:116-9. Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAuthors: Dennis G. Maki, MDAffiliations: University of Wisconsin Medical School Madison, WI 53792.Corresponding Author: Dennis G. Maki, MD, Infectious Disease H4-574, University of Wisconsin Hospital, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI 53792. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoThe Risk of Midline Catheterization in Hospitalized Patients: A Prospective Study Leonard A. Mermel , Stephen Parenteau , and Sen Mee Tow Metrics Cited byRe‐evaluating expanding intravenous catheters in medical practiceThe Practice and Complications of Midline Catheters: A Systematic ReviewA Decision Algorithm Is Not Superior to Clinician Judgment to Determine Need for Peripheral vs Central Venous CatheterizationHow to Establish an Effective Midline Program: A Case Study of 2 HospitalsEvaluation of midline vascular accessFactors Influencing Nurses' Decision-Making Process on Leaving in the Peripheral Intravascular Catheter After 96 HoursMidline CathetersCentral Venous Catheter Related Infections: The Role of Antimicrobial CathetersNosocomial infections in intensive care patientsCentral venous catheter complications in sickle cell diseaseAdverse reactions due to Aquavene�Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial-Drug TherapyInfections Related to Vascular Access DevicesGuideline for Prevention of Intravascular-Device–Related InfectionsGuideline for Prevention of Intravascular-Device-Related InfectionsCATHETER-RELATED COMPLICATIONS OF CANCER THERAPY 1 December 1995Volume 123, Issue 11Page: 884-886KeywordsAdverse reactionsBacteremiaCathetersClinical trialsDrugsFood and Drug AdministrationHealth care providersProspective studiesSafetyVeins ePublished: 15 August 2000 Issue Published: 1 December 1995 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 1995 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...