Use Of Midline Catheters Research Articles

Comparison of complications and indwelling time in midline catheters versus central venous catheters: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Central venous catheters and midline catheters are commonly used as medium- to long-term intravenous infusion tools in clinical nursing. However, there is currently no reliable conclusion on whether there are differences in complications and indwelling time between these two types of catheters. To investigate whether there are differences in the incidence of complications and indwelling time between the use of midline catheters and central venous catheters as intravenous infusion tools. A systematic search was conducted across various databases including Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Wanfang and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. The selection of studies and assessment of their quality was carried out independently by two reviewers. Meta-analysis was conducted using the RevMan 5.3 software. Heterogeneity was evaluated, one of the pooled analyses was performed using the random-effect model, while the others used the fixed-effect model. Mean differences or odds ratios with corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Ten studies (1,554 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis showed that there was a statistically significant difference in the complication rates [OR = 0.36, 95% CI (0.18, 0.70), p = 0.003], incidence of catheter-related thrombosis [OR = 0.28, 95% CI (0.11, 0.71), I2= 0%,p = 0.007], catheter-related infection[OR = 0.36, 95% CI (0.16, 0.78), I2= 27%, p = 0.007] and catheter blockage [OR = 0.21, 95% CI (0.09, 0.51), I2= 18%, p = 0.0005] between midline catheters group and central venous catheters group. There was a statistically significant difference in the catheter indwelling time between the two groups [MD = 0.9, 95% CI (0.33, 1.46), I2= 0%, p = 0.002]. There was no significant difference in other complications such as phlebitis, catheter dislodgement and leakage between the two groups. Midline catheter was superior to central venous catheter in terms of the overall complication rates and incidence of catheter-related thrombosis, catheter blockage, catheter-related infection and indwelling time.

Infiltration and Extravasation Risk with Midline Catheters: A Narrative Literature Review

Midline catheters have recently gained popularity in clinical use, with a common reason being the reduction of central venous catheter use and central line-associated bloodstream infections. At the same time, the number of nononcology vesicant medications has increased, and midline catheters are frequently being used for infusions of vesicant medications. The Infusion Nurses Society (INS) Vesicant Task Force identified midline catheter use as a possible risk factor for extravasation and concluded that a thorough literature review was necessary. This review highlights the variations in catheter terminology and tip locations, the frequency of infiltration and extravasation in published studies, and case reports of infiltration and extravasation from midline catheters. It also examines the many clinical issues requiring evidence-based decision-making for the most appropriate type of vascular access devices. After more than 30 years of clinical practice with midline catheters and what appears to be a significant number of studies, evidence is still insufficient to answer questions about infusion of vesicant and irritant medications through midline catheters. Given the absence of consensus on tip location, inadequate evidence of clinical outcomes, and importance of patient safety, the continuous infusion of vesicants, all parenteral nutrition formulas, and infusates with extremes in pH and osmolarity should be avoided through midline catheters.

Cost comparison of four venous catheters: Short peripheral catheter, Long peripheral line, Midline, and PICC for peripheral infusion

Introduction: The use of midline catheters for patients requiring a peripheral IV infusion is sometimes limited by their cost. Although decision trees allow them to be positioned in relation to short peripheral cannulas (SPC), Midlines, and PICCs, their economic impact has not yet been evaluated. A study was conducted to estimate and compare the actual costs of using the three types of catheters for durations of 7, 14, and 21 days. Methods: A budget impact analysis compared midlines or mini-midlines/long peripheral cannulas (LPCs) with SPCs and PICCs for typical medical indications excluding indications requiring central line (infusion of irritant or vesicant drugs): treatment of peritonitis over 7 days, cystic fibrosis infection over 14 days, and meningitis over 21 days. A micro-costing study identified resources used during catheter care procedures (consumables, medical/nursing care, examinations, mechanical complications). The cost of remote systemic complications was estimated from the French national cost study. Literature review compared data based on published complication frequencies. Results: Midline is more economic than the SPC (saving of 39€ over 7 days and 174€ over 14 days), and than the PICC (saving of 102€ over 14 days and 95€ over 21 days). Discussion: Despite a much higher acquisition cost of the Midline than a SPC, the cost of using a Midline is lower. Although this approach cannot be the only argument for choosing a medical device, it can contribute to it in a tense economic context. The micro-costing has been performed in a center placing PICCline using fluoroscopy for catheter tip positioning. The implantation of a PICC with ECG technique does not require an interventional radiology facility and involves significantly lower logistical and personnel costs. This factor is a limitation in this study. However, even with the use of EGC, the cost difference is in favor of Midline.

QAPI 160 - The Use of Midline Catheters in Place of Central Venous Catheters for Vasopressor Administration to Reduce Central Line-Associated Bacteremia

QAPI 160 - The Use of Midline Catheters in Place of Central Venous Catheters for Vasopressor Administration to Reduce Central Line-Associated Bacteremia

Beyond traditional venous access: Midline catheter use in pediatric apheresis.

The objective of this study was to assess the use of midline catheters as venous access for apheresis procedures in pediatric patients. A retrospective analysis of medical records was conducted from September 2019 to June 2022 to evaluate the safety and efficacy of midline catheters for therapeutic pediatric apheresis. During the study period, a total of 121 procedures were inserted in 22 unique patients. The age of the subjects ranged from 2.7 to 21 years. The blood flow rates achieved with midline catheters met or exceeded the recommended rates for apheresis in children (40 mL/min), by the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (p < 0.0001). There was one episode of catheter-related thrombosis, but no cases of bloodstream infection or catheter dislodgement were reported. In conclusion, this study supports the use of midline catheters as a safe and effective alternative for venous access during therapeutic and donor apheresis procedures in pediatric patients.

Peripheral blood stem cell collection: Are midline catheters a viable alternative to central venous catheters?

Vascular access is a rate-limiting step for peripheral blood stem cell collection. In the absence of readily accessible superficial veins, placement of tunnelled or non-tunnelled central venous catheters (CVCs) is common. These invasive access routes create medical risks for patients and are associated with logistical challenges, thus prompting a search for alternatives. One such option is the off-label use of midline catheters. We carried out a literature search for published experience with the use of midline catheters for peripheral blood stem cell collection. Data extracted included whether collections were allogeneic or autologous, donor sex, age and weight, inlet flow rate, total blood volumes (TBV) processed, collection duration, number of collections per donor, and achievement of collection targets. The search produced three reports (one in abstract form) comprising 19 patients and 26 collection events. Donor sex and status were provided for 18 patients; 10 were female, 8 were male, 12 were allogeneic, and 6 autologous. Median (range) for: donor age was 28 (12-59); donor body weight (kg) was 77.5 (45.4-113.4); inlet flow rate (in mL/min) was 66 (28-80); TBV processed (in mL) was 15,880 (6178-21,871); collection duration (in hours) was 5.0 (3.2-7.0); and CD34 × 106/kg collection yield was 5.9 (3.6-23.0). Target CD34 yields were achieved in 14/19 (74%) of donors with 7/19 (37%) requiring two collections days. Peripheral blood stem cell collection does appear to be viable via midline-based catheter access, particularly for allogeneic donors and shorter collection courses. Development of institution-specific guidelines and care pathways are recommended.

Comparing the use of midline catheters versus peripherally inserted central catheters for patients requiring peripherally compatible therapies: A pilot randomised controlled trial (the compact trial).

Midline catheter (MC) use has increased in acute-care settings, particularly for patients with difficult venous access or requiring peripherally compatible intravenous therapy for up-to 14 days. Our aim was to assess feasibility and generate clinical data comparing MCs with Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters (PICCs). A two-arm parallel group pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT), comparing MCs with PICCs, was conducted in a large tertiary hospital in Queensland between September 2020 and January 2021. The primary outcome was study feasibility, measured against rates of eligibility (>75%), consent (>90%), attrition (<5%); protocol adherence (>90%) and missing data (<5%). The primary clinical outcome was all-cause device failure. In total, 25 patients were recruited. The median patient age was 59-62 years; most patients were overweight/obese, with ≥2 co-morbidities. The eligibility and protocol adherence criteria were not met; of 159 screened patients, only 25 (16%) were eligible, and three patients did not receive their allocated intervention post-randomisation (88% adherence). All-cause failure occurred in two patients allocated to MC (20%) and one PICC (8.3%). Our study found that a fully powered RCT testing MCs compared with PICCs is not currently feasible in our setting. We recommend a robust process evaluation before the introduction of MCs into clinical practice.

Application of Midline Catheter Placed Under Ultrasound Guidance in Intravenous Therapy for Oral and Maxillofacial Tumor

To examine the application effect of ultrasound-guided placement of midline catheter and to select the appropriate placement method of intravenous catheter for patients with oral and maxillofacial tumors. We retrospectively analyzed the general data and venous catheter-related information of 143 oral and maxillofacial tumor patients who received treatment between June 2019 and December 2021. There were two patient groups, a control group of patients with inserted peripheral venous catheters (PVC) and an observation group of patients with midline catheters placed under ultrasound guidance. We made a comparative analysis of the incidence of catheter-related complications, including bleeding at the insertion site, phlebitis, catheter blockage, extravasation, etc., in the two groups. When the baseline data from the two groups were not balanced, we used propensity score matching (PSM) to match the general data before comparing the complication incidence between the two groups. There were 71 patients who underwent 215 times of PVC placement in the control group and 72 patients who underwent 72 times of midline catheter placement in the observation group. There was no significant difference between the patients in the two groups in terms of age, sex, diagnosis, or the use of anticoagulant medication ( P>0.05) . The observation group had longer average length-of-stay than the control group did ( P<0.01). The cost of catheter placement in the observation group was 1080 yuan per set, with the average daily cost being about (56.27±20.23) yuan. Patients in the control group had PVC placement for an average of (3.03±0.93) times. The cost for PVC placement was 96 yuan per time and the average daily cost was about (19.94±7.50) yuan. There was significant difference in the average daily cost between the observation group and the control group ( P<0.01). PSM was performed for the two groups. Before PSM, the incidence of catheter-related complications in the observation group (8.3%, 6/72) was lower than that of the control group (30.2%, 65/215) and the difference was statistically significant ( P<0.01). After PSM, 72 times of catheter placement from each group were included in comparative analysis. The incidence of catheter-related complications in the observation group (8.3%, 6/72) was lower than that of the control group (54.2%, 39/72) and the difference was statistically significant ( P<0.01). Patients have low incidence of catheter-related complications when they have midline catheter placed under ultrasound guidance, which helps reduce the pain of repeated venous insertion that patients incur and the workload of clinical nurses. The use of midline catheters is appropriate for and should be popularized among patients with oral and maxillofacial malignant tumors, especially patients who have poor peripheral venous conditions and those who are undergoing repair and reconstruction surgeries.

Promoting appropriate midline catheter and PICC placement through implementation of an EHR-based clinical decision support tool: An interrupted time-series analysis.

Inappropriate use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), including multilumen PICCs, may increase the risk of patient complications. Implement computerized decision support to: (a) increase the use of midline catheters over PICCs when appropriate and (b) decrease PICC lumens when a PICC is necessary. Quasi-experimental, interrupted time series. Single tertiary academic medical center. Hospitalized adults who received a midline or PICC during clinical care. Decision support on appropriate vascular access device choice via a set of electronic orders embedded within the electronic health record. Proportion of midline catheter and single-lumen PICCs placed between January 2, 2017 and November 19, 2017 (preintervention) versus November 20, 2017 to December 1, 2019 (postintervention). A total of 8758 midline and PICCs were inserted during the study period. A statistically significant increase in the insertion of midline catheters was observed during the intervention (p = .006). In parallel, single-lumen PICC insertion as a proportion of all PICCs also increased after the intervention (p = .035). Results were consistent across multiple disciplines, including internal medicine, surgery, and intensive care. After considering the hospital census, total PICC and midline utilization rates and rates of complications did not change over time. However, an increase in catheter exchanges from less to more invasive devices occurred. In this single-center study, the implementation of electronic decision support to inform appropriate catheter use led to a more appropriate midline catheter and single-lumen PICC insertion. Dissemination of this single, effective intervention to examine efficacy in other hospital settings would be welcomed.

Midline catheter tip position and catheter-related complications in antimicrobial therapy: A multi-center randomized controlled trial

BackgroundThe use of midline catheters (MCs) in intravenous therapy has increased over the last few years; however, scientific evidence is scarce. The recommendations for its specific tip position and safe use in antimicrobial therapy are not well established, which increases the risk of catheter-related complications. ObjectiveThis study aimed to provide evidence for selecting MC tip positions for safe use in antimicrobial therapy. DesignThis prospective, randomized controlled trial compared catheter-related complications with different tip positions. Participants were assigned to three different catheter tip groups, and the relationship between the tip position and catheter-related complications was observed during antimicrobial therapy. SettingMulticenter trial based in intravenous therapy centers at six Chinese hospitals. ParticipantsA fixed-point continuous convenience sampling method was used to enroll 330 participants. Three different study groups with equal numbers of participants (n = 110) were established using a randomization technique. MethodsThe incidence of catheter-related complications and catheter retention time was compared among the three groups. The catheter measurement data between the three groups were compared using one-way ANOVA or the Kruskal-Wallis tests. Counting data were compared using chi-square tests, Fisher's exact tests, and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Post-hoc tests were conducted to compare the incidence of complications among the three groups. We followed a time-to-event analysis approach and used Kaplan–Meier curves and log-rank tests to analyze the relationship between catheter-related complications and different tip positions. ResultsThe total incidence of catheter-related complications in Experimental Groups 1 and 2 as well as the control group were 10.09%, 17.98%, and 33.73%, respectively. Statistically significant differences existed between the groups (p < 0.0001). In pairwise comparisons of the three groups, significant differences were evident in the incidence of complications between Experimental Group 1 and the control group (RD 19.40%, confidence interval 7.71–31.09). No statistical significance in the incidence of complications between Experimental Group 1 and Experiment Group 2 (RD −4.93%, confidence interval −14.80–4.95) and in the incidence of complications between Experimental Group 2 and the control group (RD 14.47%, confidence interval 1.82–27.12) were noted. ConclusionCatheter-related complications were reduced when the tip of the Midline Catheter was located in the subclavian or axillary vein of the chest wall. Trial registrationNCT04601597(https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04601597). Registration date: September 1, 2020.

Which trial do we need? Infectious and non-infectious complications of peripherally inserted central venous catheters and midline catheters

Peripherally-inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) are frequently used in outpatient and inpatient settings. Recently, midline catheters have emerged as an alternative to PICCs, with an important increase in use over the last few years ( 1 Bing S. Smotherman C. Rodriguez R.G. Skarupa D.J. Ra J.H. Crandall M.L. PICC versus midlines: comparison of peripherally inserted central catheters and midline catheters with respect to incidence of thromboembolic and infectious complications. Am J Surg. 2022; 223: 983-987 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (2) Google Scholar ). Midline catheters have a shorter length and lower surface area reducing the theoretical risk of infectious and non-infectious complications ( 2 Lu H. Hou Y. Chen J. Guo Y. Lang L. Zheng X. et al. Risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection associated with midline catheters compared with peripherally inserted central catheters: A meta-analysis. Nurs Open. 2021; 8: 1292-1300 Crossref Scopus (4) Google Scholar ). These catheters are 7.5 to 25cm in length, usually inserted above the antecubital fossa, with the catheter tip residing in the basilic or cephalic vein just short of the subclavian vein. The recommended duration of midline catheter use is one to four weeks, while PICCs can remain indwelling for months ( 3 Chopra V. Flanders S.A. Saint S. Woller S.C. O'Grady N.P. Safdar N. et al. The michigan appropriateness guide for intravenous catheters (MAGIC): results from a multispecialty panel using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. Ann Intern Med. 2015; 163: S1-S40 Crossref PubMed Scopus (324) Google Scholar , 4 Moss J.G. Wu O. Bodenham A.R. Agarwal R. Menne T.F. Jones B.L. et al. Central venous access devices for the delivery of systemic anticancer therapy (CAVA): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2021; 398: 403-415 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (14) Google Scholar ).

Comparing Complication Rates of Midline Catheter vs Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and midlines are commonly used devices for reliable vascular access. Infection and thrombosis are the main adverse effects of these catheters. We aimed to evaluate the relative risk of complications from midlines and PICCs. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. The primary outcomes were catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) and thrombosis. Secondary outcomes evaluated included mortality, failure to complete therapy, catheter occlusion, phlebitis, and catheter fracture. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Of 8368 citations identified, 20 studies met the eligibility criteria, including 1 RCT and 19 observational studies. Midline use was associated with fewer patients with CRBSI compared with PICCs (odds ratio [OR], 0.24; 95% CI, 0.15-0.38). This association was not observed when we evaluated risk per catheter. No significant association was found between catheters when evaluating risk of localized thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. A subgroup analysis based on location of thrombosis showed higher rates of superficial venous thrombosis in patients using midlines (OR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.48-3.57). We did not identify any significant difference between midlines and PICCs for the secondary outcomes. Our findings suggest that patients who use midlines might experience fewer CRBSIs than those who use PICCs. However, the use of midline catheters was associated with greater risk of superficial vein thrombosis. These findings can help guide future cost-benefit analyses and direct comparative RCTs to further characterize the efficacy and risks of PICCs vs midline catheters.

Incidence of Midline Catheter Complications Among Hospitalized Patients.

The use of midline catheters has increased to reduce excessive use of central venous access devices, and additional data on midline catheter complications are needed. This study aimed to describe midline catheter complications among hospitalized patients. This retrospective study included a random sample of 300 hospitalized patients with a midline catheter insertion in 2019. The primary outcome was a composite end point of 8 complications: occlusion, bleeding at insertion site, infiltration/extravasation, catheter-related thrombosis, accidental removal, phlebitis, hematoma, and catheter-related infection. Midline catheter failure was defined as removal prior to the end of therapy due to complications. Among 300 midline catheters, the incidence of the composite end point of 1 or more midline complications was 38% (95% confidence interval, 33%-44%). Complications included occlusion (17.0%), bleeding at insertion site (12.0%), infiltration/extravasation (10.0%), catheter-related thrombosis (4.0%), accidental removal (3.0%), phlebitis (0.3%), hematoma (0.3%), and catheter-related infection (0.3%). Midline catheter failure occurred in 16% of midline catheters (n = 48) due to infiltration/extravasation (n = 27), accidental removal (n = 10), catheter-related thrombosis (n = 9), occlusion (n = 4), and catheter-related infection (n = 1). Three catheters had 2 types of failure. The most common complications of occlusion and bleeding rarely resulted in midline catheter failure. The most common causes of midline catheter failure were infiltration/extravasation, accidental removal, and catheter-related thrombosis.

Midline Catheters: Could They Replace a Central Vascular Access Device?

In the past 30 years, midline catheter use has grown rapidly. For several reasons, many providers and facilities are attempting to reduce the number of central venous catheters and subsequent central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) by using midline catheters. Vessel preservation requires attention to all vascular access device (VAD)-associated complications and not only central line bloodstream infection. There is still much confusion about the appropriate tip location and the characteristics of fluids and medications that can safely be infused through a midline catheter residing in a peripheral vein. The Infusion Therapy Standards of Practice (the Standards) focuses on assessment of characteristics of infusion therapies that must be considered for VAD selection as an evidence-based list of fluids and medications for infusion through peripheral veins has yet to be established. This review of midline catheter studies evaluates the evidence regarding the substitution of a midline catheter for a central venous catheter. Many issues need to be addressed, such as studies that include an outcome list that mixes defined clinical complications (eg, thrombosis) with signs and symptoms of complications (eg, leaking). Another issue is basing a major change of clinical practice on retrospective chart reviews. Although a midline catheter may be appropriate for some patients, additional studies of a higher level of evidence are needed before this major practice change should occur.

PICC vs. midline catheter use for short-term indications was linked to major complications at ≤30 d.

Swaminathan L, Flanders S, Horowitz J, et al. Safety and outcomes of midline catheters vs peripherally inserted central catheters for patients with short-term indications: a multicenter study. JAMA Intern Med. 2022;182:50-8. 34842905.

Does the Midline Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Have a Place in Critical Care?

The goals of infusion therapy are to preserve vascular health and safely deliver needed treatment. Achieving these goals is challenging in critical care because of the complexity of the treatment required. Daily justification of retaining an existing central venous catheter also creates urgency to change to a peripheral vascular access device. The midline catheter has had a resurgence in use because of the need for a long-term peripheral vascular access device not linked to central catheter-associated bloodstream infection risk. To review the characteristics of midline catheters, the benefits and risks of midline catheters, and current evidence regarding midline catheter use in critical care. Research related to midline catheters has greatly expanded the body of knowledge regarding vascular access device selection and midline catheter use. Although the quality and results of research on vascular access devices vary widely, a more accurate safety profile is emerging to illustrate how midline catheter use can support the goals of infusion therapy. Optimizing vascular access device selection requires recognition that every vascular access device can cause patient harm. Although the midline catheter appears to fill an important niche in infusion therapy, use of the midline catheter should be carefully evaluated. Midline catheters should not be used as a catheter-associated bloodstream infection prevention strategy, should be inserted to administer peripherally compatible solutions, and should be considered for short-term continuous vesicant therapy only in emergent situations until more definitive vascular access can be achieved.

Ultrasound-Guided Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Insertion Training Reduces Use of Midline Catheters in Hospitalized Patients With Difficult Intravenous Access.

Difficult intravenous (IV) access (DIVA) is a prevalent condition in the hospital setting and increases utilization of midline catheters (MCs) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). Ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous (USGPIV) insertion is effective at establishing intravenous access in DIVA but remains understudied in the inpatient setting. We evaluated the effect of an USGPIV simulation-based mastery learning (SBML) curriculum for nurses on MC and PICC utilization for hospitalized patients. We performed a quasi-experimental observational study. We trained nurses across all inpatient units at a large tertiary care hospital. We queried the electronic medical record to compare PICC and MC utilization for patients with DIVA during 3 periods: before USGPIV SBML training (control), during pilot testing of the intervention, and during the SBML intervention. To account for variations in insertion practices over time, we performed an interrupted time series (ITS) analysis between 2 periods, the combined control and pilot periods and the intervention period. One hundred forty-eight nurses completed USGPIV SBML training. Midline catheters inserted monthly per 1000 patient-days for DIVA decreased significantly from 1.86 ± 0.51 (control) to 2.31 ± 0.28 (pilot) to 1.33 ± 0.51 (intervention; P = 0.001). The ITS analysis indicated a significant intervention effect (P < 0.001). Peripherally inserted central catheters inserted monthly per 1000 patient-days for DIVA also significantly decreased over the study periods; however, the ITS failed to show an intervention effect as PICC insertions were already decreasing during the control period. A hospital-wide USGPIV SBML curriculum for inpatient nurses was associated with a significant reduction in MCs inserted for DIVA.

Short midline catheters: High success rates for antibiotic therapy in children with cystic fibrosis.

Short midline catheter use in paediatric populations appears to be increasing, however data on success rates and efficacy are sparse. This study aims to describe the success rate when midline venous catheters are employed as a single device for intravenous antibiotic therapy in paediatric patients with cystic fibrosis. A retrospective cohort study was performed in a single institution, retrieving electronic medical record data from July 2017 through March 2020. The primary outcome was device success, defined as a catheter that remained functional until the end of antibiotic therapy. Reasons for device failure were categorized in a standard fashion. Primary outcome data were available for 116 catheter insertions, involving 49 patients and 55 proceduralists. The success rate was 84% (n = 98). Median age at insertion was 15 years (range 4-19) and median weight 52 kg (13-81). Soft, polyether block amide, Arrow® Seldinger Arterial Catheters were employed. Only 16 patients (14%) required general anaesthesia. Median time to failure was 6 days, and median time to successful completion of treatment was 13 days. Six of 18 failures occurred within 48 h and were likely insertion complications. The most common reasons for device failure were occlusion, extravasation, phlebitis and dislodgement. More than half of patients (56%) received antibiotic therapy at home. There is a high single device success rate when inserting short midlines for 13-day intravenous pulmonary antibiotic therapy in children with cystic fibrosis. These results should be confirmed with a prospective study.

Novel use of a midline catheter for therapeutic and donor apheresis in children and adults.

Apheresis procedures require adequate vascular access to achieve optimal inlet flow rates. While central lines provide such access, their placement and use are associated with risks; some of these risks are minimized if peripheral intravenous access can be established. However, peripheral intravenous access is associated with challenges in the pediatric setting. Research indicates that midline catheters reduce the use of CVADs and their associated risks. The use of midline catheters for apheresis has been reported recently in adults, but no studies have been published on their use in children. Thus, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of midline catheters for apheresis in the pediatric setting. A retrospective observational study was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of midline catheters in subjects who underwent apheresis at a pediatric hospital from April 2018 to August 2020. Demographic data, clinical data (diagnosis, procedure, catheter size, body mass), and outcome data (inlet flow rate, total blood volume [TBV] processed, procedure time, and cell counts) were collected. Eighteen subjects received a total of 100 midline catheters for 73 apheresis procedures. Inlet flow rates ranged from 45 to 80 mL/min, TBV ranged from 2872 to 20 000 mL, and procedure time ranged from 1.25 to 7hours. Inlet flow rates met or exceeded the recommended inlet flow rates for apheresis in children and adults (P < .0001). No adverse events occurred. Midline catheters provide safe and effective vascular access for apheresis. Future research should include younger patients with lower body mass.

Evaluation of processes, outcomes, and use of midline peripheral catheters for the purpose of blood collection.

Results added knowledge on use of midline catheters (MCs) for blood sampling. Using MCs for blood withdrawal resulted in low rates of hemolysis (0.69%). Dwell time was longer in those who had blood drawn from their MC. Nurse practices for blood sampling from MCs varied and learned from other nurses. Blood withdrawal from midline catheters (MCs) is done clinically, but no studies were found evaluating outcomes from this procedure, nor were clinical guidelines found. Drawing blood samples from short peripheral catheters is associated with higher hemolysis rates. A prospective, observational, mixed methods study was used to evaluate outcomes from using MCs for blood withdrawal. Focus group sessions were held to evaluate nurses' practices for this procedure. Data were collected over 3 months on 397 MCs in 378 patients. Hemolysis rates when the MC was used for blood withdrawal was 0.69% in 1021 tests. More than half had blood specimens drawn through the MC, and the time known for the successful withdrawal was on average 64 ± 85 hours. Mean dwell time for all MCs was 108.5 ± 98 hours, and when MCs were used for blood withdrawal, mean dwell time was 127.19 ± 109.13 hours and for MCs not used for blood withdrawal, 88.34 ± 79.86 hours (P < 0.001). In 338 patients who received therapy through their MC (n = 338), 87% completed intended therapy: 88% with blood withdrawal and 81% without blood withdrawal. Qualitative analysis from focus groups demonstrated wide variation in practice for blood sampling from MCs, and most learned techniques from their preceptors, other nurses, or patients. Findings indicated that blood withdrawal from one specific type of MC had low rates of hemolysis, increased dwell time, and completion of therapy. More studies are needed to determine best practices for blood sampling through various types of MCs and outcomes.