Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29467481›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2018

The mechanistic causes of peripheral intravenous catheter failure based on a parametric computational study.

Russell Piper, Peter J Carr, Lachlan J Kelsey, Andrew C Bulmer, Samantha Keogh, Barry J Doyle

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Quantitative and qualitative investigation of shunt failure in anFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Russell PiperVascular Engineering Laboratory, Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research, QEII Medical Centre, Nedlands and Centre for Medical Research, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Peter J CarrEmergency Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Lachlan J KelseyVascular Engineering Laboratory, Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research, QEII Medical Centre, Nedlands and Centre for Medical Research, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Andrew C BulmerThe Alliance for Vascular Access Teaching and Research Group, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.
Samantha KeoghThe Alliance for Vascular Access Teaching and Research Group, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.
Barry J DoyleVascular Engineering Laboratory, Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research, QEII Medical Centre, Nedlands and Centre for Medical Research, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia. barry.doyle@uwa.edu.au.
University of Western Australia · AUGriffith University · AUQueensland University of Technology · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are the most commonly used invasive medical device, yet up to 50% fail. Many pathways to failure are mechanistic and related to fluid mechanics, thus can be investigated using computational fluid dynamics (CFD). Here we used CFD to investigate typical PIVC parameters (infusion rate, catheter size, insertion angle and tip position) and report the hemodynamic environment (wall shear stress (WSS), blood damage, particle residence time and venous stasis volumes) within the vein and catheter, and show the effect of each PIVC parameter on each hemodynamic measure. Catheter infusion rate has the greatest impact on our measures, with catheter orientation also playing a significant role. In some PIVC configurations WSS was 3254 times higher than the patent vein, and blood damage was 512 times greater, when compared to control conditions. Residence time is geometry-dependent and decreases exponentially with increasing insertion angle. Stasis volume decreased with increasing infusion rate and, to a lesser degree, insertion angle. Even without infusion, the presence of the catheter changes the flow field, causing low velocity recirculation at the catheter tip. This research demonstrates how several controllable factors impact important mechanisms of PIVC failure. These data, the first of their kind, suggest limiting excessive infusion rates in PIVC.

Indexed as

Catheterization, PeripheralCathetersComputer SimulationEquipment FailureHemodynamicsHumansHydrodynamicsModels, BiologicalRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID29467481
PMCPMC5821891
OpenAlexW2791561143

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.