Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
The College of Family Physicians of Canada
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums
  • My alerts
The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • RSS feeds
  • Follow cfp Template on Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
Research ArticlePractice

Venous access

A practical review for 2009

Edward Cheung, Mark O. Baerlocher, Murray Asch and Andrew Myers
Canadian Family Physician May 2009; 55 (5) 494-496;
Edward Cheung
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: 5emc@queensu.ca
Mark O. Baerlocher
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Murray Asch
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrew Myers
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Venous access is one of the most basic yet critical components of patient care both in hospital and in ambulatory patient settings. Safe and reliable venous access is an important issue in daily practice, and understanding the options and being able to counsel patients on appropriate devices is of growing importance to family physicians.

There are a variety of options available for venous access. Venous access device (VAD) selection must be tailored to each patient’s needs and to the type, duration, and frequency of infusion (Table 1). In this brief review, we will explore issues related to VAD selection and maintenance.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Types and uses of current prevailing venous access devices

Conventional peripheral intravenous lines

Conventional peripheral intravenous (IV) lines are simple, inexpensive, and can be used for short-term IV therapy. Veins are typically accessed in the patient’s hand or arm, and sometimes in the foot.1,2 Intravenous lines must be replaced frequently, as the complication rates of infiltration and phlebitis increase dramatically with increased catheter dwell-time.3 In order to reduce the possibility of phlebitis, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends replacing peripheral venous catheters and rotating the site at least every 72 to 96 hours.1 This increases the expense for patients who require IV access for more than a few days and makes outpatient treatment more complex.

Midline peripheral catheters

Midline catheters are inserted into the antecubital (or other upper arm) vein. They are typically 20 cm long and their tips do not reach the central veins of the thorax.4,5 They are used for venous access of between 1 and 4 weeks’ duration but are not advised for administration of vesicant or highly irritating drugs that could harm the peripheral veins (eg, chemotherapy).4–6 Midline catheters are safe and effective but their use is declining in favour of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), which have similar insertion costs but added benefits of central tip location and longer potential dwell-times.7

Central catheters

Central lines terminate in the veins within the thorax. Central lines can be classified as either peripherally inserted or centrally inserted central devices. As central venous access is potentially lifesaving, there are no absolute contraindications to performing the procedure8; however, knowing which device is most appropriate for each situation might improve patient outcomes.

Aside from emergent placement of central lines, the indications for central catheters include the following:

  • administration of IV fluids, medications, or blood products, either in large quantities or over a prolonged period of time;

  • administration of medications that are harmful to peripheral veins (eg, chemotherapy);

  • long-term access to the central venous system for repeated procedures, such as blood sampling; and

  • poor or inaccessible peripheral venous access.9–11

Peripherally inserted central catheters

Peripherally inserted central catheters are most commonly inserted via the basilic, brachial, or cephalic veins.9,10 Insertion is easier and safer than that of centrally inserted catheters in particular, without the attendant risk of pneumothorax and hemothorax.10 In some centres, skilled nursing teams have been trained to insert PICCs.

Peripherally inserted central catheter lines are indicated in patients requiring several weeks to 6 months of IV therapy. Common indications for PICC lines include parenteral delivery of nutrition, antibiotics, and analgesics, as well as chemotherapy and repeated blood transfusions.

Peripherally inserted central catheters require frequent flushing and dressing changes, and the insertion site should not get wet. Complications include dislodgment, occlusion, mechanical phlebitis, and deep vein thrombosis (DVT). The claim that PICCs have lower rates of infection than centrally inserted catheters has not yet been substantiated in the literature.12

Centrally inserted catheters

For central insertion, preferred veins include the internal and external jugular. Although access to the subclavian might be technically easy using bony landmarks in the absence of ultrasound guidance, it is generally not advised to place VADs directly into this vein owing to the relatively high incidence of venous thrombosis and the increased risk of catheter damage or fracture associated with subclavian lines.13,14

The 3 main types of centrally inserted catheters are as follows: non-tunneled, skin-tunneled, and implantable ports.

Non-tunneled catheters

Non-tunneled catheters are primarily used for short-term access in the emergency department, operating room, and intensive care unit. These lines are typically meant for rapid resuscitation or pressure monitoring. The lifespan of the catheter is 5 to 7 days, and can provide up to 5 lumens for separate access.9 These catheters are associated with a higher risk of infection and are inappropriate for patients who require central venous access for longer than 2 weeks.9,15

Skin-tunneled catheters

Skin-tunneled catheters, such as Hickman catheters, are appropriate for longer residence and reduce the incidence of infection by increasing the distance between the skin entry site and the venotomy. Although they provide reliable long-term access, their complications include thrombosis, occlusion, and infection.16 These lines are favoured in patients requiring frequent and long-term venous access, particularly for infusion of blood products.

Implantable ports

The implantable port consists of a catheter attached to a reservoir that is implanted into a surgically created pocket on the chest wall or upper arm. A needle is inserted through the port’s septum to access the reservoir. Advantages include less interference with daily activities, less frequent flushing, and reduced risk of infection. Disadvantages include the need for needle insertion, increased discomfort, and the risk of extravasation. These devices are expensive, and are more difficult and time-consuming to insert and remove.16

Issues to consider

Image guidance

Ultrasound evaluation of veins is very valuable to ensure patency before venous puncture. Real-time ultrasound guidance has also been shown to reduce complications and improve technical success of central line placement.17,18 A recent death following misplacement of a central venous catheter has prompted the Ontario Patient Safety Review Committee to recommend that practitioners who insert central catheters use ultrasound guidance.19

Renal failure

In order to preserve veins for future hemodialysis access (fistula or graft), it is essential to consult with the interventional radiologist or nephrologist before placing upper extremity or subclavian lines of any type in patients who might eventually require dialysis.

Thrombosis

Thrombosis can occur within the catheter or within the vein. Thrombosis within the catheter might interfere with infusion (flushing) or aspiration through the catheter, or might cause complete occlusion of 1 or more lumen. Low-dose thrombolytic therapy (eg, alteplase dwell) can often restore patency within an hour.20 Many VADs include an antireflux valve in their designs or include a positive pressure valve in their packaging. Vigilance in following flushing protocols and the use of prophylactic low-dose anticoagulants where appropriate can decrease the incidence of thrombosis, which in turn reduces the infection rate as thrombus can provide a medium for bacterial growth.16

The presence of a foreign body (ie, a VAD) might serve as a stimulus for venous thrombosis. The actual incidence of VAD-associated thrombosis is unknown—the majority of patients are asymptomatic. Patients presenting with swelling, warmth, and redness of the arm should be referred for upper extremity Doppler venous ultrasound to check for potential DVT.21 Subclavian vein compression thrombosis is an uncommon complication of using a VAD; patients presenting with symptoms of subclavian vein compression syndrome should be referred for enhanced chest computed tomography or central thoracic venogram.22 It is important to note that as long as the VAD continues to function and central venous access is required, it should not be removed on account of venous thrombosis.23 Venous access device–associated venous thrombosis is treated with systemic anticoagulation, in the same way as lower extremity DVT is managed.

Nonthrombotic occlusion of VAD is uncommon, but can occur when incompatible infusions result in precipitation and blockage of the lumen. Algorithms are available to guide attempts to reestablish patency in such occluded catheters, but are beyond the scope of this review.

Infection

One of the most serious complications of VADs is infection, including bacterial endocarditis. Central devices, including PICCs, carry greater risk of infection because they are open to the larger veins of the body. Tunneled catheters have lower infection rates and ports risk even fewer infections.9,16

It is essential to differentiate between local insertion site inflammation and true infection. Infections can be divided into entrance-site cellulitis (which usually responds to antibiotic treatment), skin tract or tunnel infection, and catheter-related bacteremia.24,25 Preventive use of antibiotics has not been shown to reduce the risk of infection.26 Meticulous sterile technique at the time of catheter insertion, when accessing the central line, and when changing dressings is essential. Antimicrobial-coated or impregnated catheters have also been developed27,28; however, these are seldom used in clinical practice.

Conclusion

Reliable venous access is an essential aspect of medical care. There are many options and approaches from which to choose—selecting the appropriate device and knowledge of the detection and management of complications are skills that are essential to family physicians.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests

    None declared

  • We encourage readers to share some of their practice experience: the neat little tricks that solve difficult clinical situations. Praxis articles can be submitted on-line at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cfp or through the CFP website www.cfp.ca under “Authors.”

  • Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada

References

  1. ↵
    AdamsJMolzhanAPotterPAPerryAGRoss-KerrJCWoodMJFluid, electrolyte, and acid-base balancesCanadian fundamentals of nursing3rd edToronto, ONElsevier Canada20061144208
  2. ↵
    LillebyKAltmanGBBarenzTAAltmanGBStarting an IVDelmar’s fundamentals and advanced nursing skills2nd edNew York, NYThomson Learning, Inc2004103543
  3. ↵
    SmithBPeripheral intravenous catheter dwell times: a comparison of 3 securement methods for implementation of a 96-hour scheduled change protocolJ Infus Nurs2006291147
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. ↵
    AndersonNRWhen to use a midline catheterNursing200535428
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    GilbertTBSeneffMGBeckerRBFacilitation of internal jugular venous cannulation using an audio-guided Doppler ultrasound vascular access device: results from a prospective, dual-center, randomized, crossover clinical studyCrit Care Med1995231605
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    MakiDGReactions associated with midline catheters for intravenous accessAnn Intern Med1995123118846
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. ↵
    HorattasMCTrupianoJHopkinsSPasiniDMartinoCMurtyAChanging concepts in long-term central venous access: catheter selection and cost savingsAm J Infect Control20012913240
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    TaylorRWPalagiriAVCentral venous catheterizationCrit Care Med20073513906
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    DoughertyLCentral venous access devicesNurs Stand200014434550
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. ↵
    MoureauNPooleSMurdockMAGraySMSembaCPCentral venous catheters in home infusion care: outcomes analysis in 50,470 patientsJ Vasc Interv Radiol20021310100916
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    NgPKAultMJEllrodtAGMaldonadoLPeripherally inserted central catheters in general medicineMayo Clin Proc199772322533
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    TariqMHuangDTPICCing the best access for your patientCrit Care200610315
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. ↵
    TrerotolaSOKuhn-FultonJJohnsonMSShahHAmbrosiusWTKneebonePHTunneled infusion catheters: increased incidence of symptomatic venous thrombosis after subclavian versus internal jugular venous accessRadiology200021718993
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    DebetsJMWilsJASchlangenJTA rare complication of implanted central-venous access devices: catheter fracture and embolizationSupport Care Cancer1995364324
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    MillerDLO’GradyNPGuidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections: recommendations relevant to interventional radiologyJ Vasc Interv Radiol2003142 Pt 11336
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. ↵
    GallowaySBodenhamALong-term central venous accessBr J Anaesth200492572234Epub 2004 Mar 5
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    RobinsonMKMogensenKMGrudinskasGFKohlerSJacobsDOImproved care and reduced costs for patients requiring peripherally inserted central catheters: the role of bedside ultrasound and a dedicated teamJPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr20052953749
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    MillingTJJrRoseJBriggsWMBirkhahnRGaetaTJBoveJJRandomized, controlled clinical trial of point-of-care limited ultrasonography assistance of central venous cannulation: the Third Sonography Outcomes Assessment Program (SOAP-3) TrialCrit Care Med200533817649
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    The College of Physicians and Surgeons of OntarioUse of ultrasound-guided central venous catheter insertion urgedDialogue200843245Available from: www.cpso.on.ca/uploadedFiles/downloads/cpsodocuments/policies/publications/Dialogue_July2008.pdfAccessed 2009 Feb 24
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    LokCEThomasAVercaigneLCanadian Hemodialysis Catheter Working Group. A patient-focused approach to thrombolytic use in the management of catheter malfunctionSemin Dial200619538190
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. ↵
    WhitmanEDNortonJABariePSBollingerRRChangAELowrySFMulvihillSJVascular access for cancerSurgery. Basic science and clinical evidenceNew York, NYSpringer20001795822
  22. ↵
    PlekkerDEllisTIrusenEMBolligerCTDiaconAHClinical and radiological grading of superior vena cava obstructionRespiration20087616975Epub 2007 Sep 25
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    BishopLDoughertyLBodenhamAMansiJCrowePKibblerCGuidelines on the insertion and management of central venous access devices in adultsInt J Lab Hematol200729426178
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    DenysBGUretskyBFReddyPSUltrasound-assisted cannulation of the internal jugular vein. A prospective comparison to the external landmark-guided techniqueCirculation1993875155762
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    ParkinsonRGandhiMHarperJArchibaldCEstablishing an ultrasound guided peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) insertion serviceClin Radiol1998531336
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    RyanJMRyanBMSmithTPAntibiotic prophylaxis in interventional radiologyJ Vasc Interv Radiol200415654756
    OpenUrlPubMed
  27. ↵
    MermelLAPrevention of intravascular catheter-related infectionsAnn Intern Med20001325391402Erratum in: Ann Intern Med 2000;133(5):395
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    VeenstraDLSaintSSahaSLumleyTSullivanSDEfficacy of antiseptic-impregnated central venous catheters in preventing catheter-related bloodstream infection: a meta-analysisJAMA199928132617
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Family Physician: 55 (5)
Canadian Family Physician
Vol. 55, Issue 5
1 May 2009
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on The College of Family Physicians of Canada.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Venous access
(Your Name) has sent you a message from The College of Family Physicians of Canada
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the The College of Family Physicians of Canada web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Venous access
Edward Cheung, Mark O. Baerlocher, Murray Asch, Andrew Myers
Canadian Family Physician May 2009, 55 (5) 494-496;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Venous access
Edward Cheung, Mark O. Baerlocher, Murray Asch, Andrew Myers
Canadian Family Physician May 2009, 55 (5) 494-496;
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Conventional peripheral intravenous lines
    • Midline peripheral catheters
    • Central catheters
    • Issues to consider
    • Conclusion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Performance and safety of PowerPICC catheters and accessories: a prospective observational study
  • A midline for oxaliplatin infusion: the myth of safety devices
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Practice

  • Managing type 2 diabetes in primary care during COVID-19
  • Effectiveness of dermoscopy in skin cancer diagnosis
  • Spontaneous pneumothorax in children
Show more Practice

Praxis

  • Éponge à haut rebond comme outil de simulation d’une suture périnéale
  • High-rebound sponge as a simulation tool for perineal suture
  • Assessment and management of disability due to mental disorders
Show more Praxis

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Collections - English
  • Collections - Française

For Authors

  • Authors and Reviewers
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Permissions
  • Terms of Use

General Information

  • About CFP
  • About the CFPC
  • Advertisers
  • Careers & Locums
  • Editorial Advisory Board
  • Subscribers

Journal Services

  • Email Alerts
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • RSS Feeds

Copyright © 2025 by The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Powered by HighWire