Safety and Efficacy of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Placement . . . sivist–led vascular access team has comparable safety and efficiency to that of USG-guided PICC placement in the ICU or fluoroscopy-guided PICC placement Key Words: Central venous catheter, Peripherally inserted central catheter place-ment, Catheter-associated infection, Ultrasonography, Vascular access device Received December 9, 2022
Safety and Efficacy of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Placement . . . Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of bedside peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) placement under ultrasonography (USG) guidance in the general ward by a surgical intensivist–led vascular access team versus that of PICC placement in the intensive care unit (ICU) or fluoroscopy unit
A Prospective Postmarket Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of a . . . are widely used for a variety of intravenous (IV) therapies and, depending on the original Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) indication for insertion, may remain in place for as short as a few days to as long as sev-eral months
Safety and utilization of peripherally inserted central catheters . . . Midline catheters (MCs) are peripheral IV access devices that may reduce the need for central lines and hence decrease central line–associated bloodstream infections The objective of this study is to compare the utilization and safety of PICCs and MCs
Safety and feasibility of ultrasound-guided insertion of peripherally . . . Background: We investigated the safety and feasibility of ultrasound-guided peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC) placements performed by intensive care medical trainees in comparison to PICC placements performed by intensivists
Safety of Midline vs Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters Question Is the use of midline catheters (MCs) a safe and more efficacious alternative to peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) for adult patients receiving medium- to long-term intravenous therapy?
Vascular Access Devices: A Comparative Analysis of . . . - ISPOR The rates of DVT ranged from 2 36% for peripheral catheters (PVCs) to 10 91% for central venous catheters (CVCs) Bloodstream infections had rates ranging from 0 21% for PVCs to 11 82% for CVCs Other adverse events such as pneumothorax, phlebitis, occlusion, and pulmonary embolism also exhibited varying rates across the different access devices
Bedside PICC Placement - Full Text - IVTEAM Citation Library Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of bedside peripherally inserted central catheter placement under ultrasonography (USG) guidance in the general ward by a surgical intensivist-led vascular access team versus that of PICC placement in the intensive care unit or fluoroscopy unit