ArticleBMC anesthesiology2022
A pressure-resistant peripherally inserted central catheter is as useful as a central venous catheter for rapid fluid infusion: an in vitro study.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Technical considerations in interpreting rapid transfusion through a 4.2-Fr Broviac catheter.JA clinical reports · 2026Article
- Efficacy of single-lumen and double-lumen peripherally inserted central catheters in patients undergoing digestive surgery within bundled care contexts.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Correlation between ultrasound-measured inferior vena cava diameter and peripherally inserted central catheter measured central venous pressure in low birth weight infants.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Application value of high-pressure-resistant peripherally inserted central catheters in enhanced computer tomography of diabetic patients with malignant tumors.World journal of diabetes · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) have been widely used, they have not been frequently used in anesthesia practice. The central venous pressure measured via PICCs are reportedly as accurate as that measured via central venous catheters (CVCs), but the findings concerning rapid infusion are unclear. This study examined whether or not pressure-resistant PICCs could be used for rapid fluid infusion.
methodsThe in-line pressure was measured in similar-sized double-lumen catheters-4-Fr PICC (55, 45 and 35 cm) and 17-G CVC (20 and 13 cm)-at flow rates of saline decided using a roller pump system. We also examined the flow rate at an in-line pressure of 300 mmHg, which is the critical pressure at which hemolysis is considered to occur during blood transfusion.
resultsThe pressure-resistant PICCs obtained a high flow rate similar to that of CVCs, but the in-line pressures increased in proportion to the flow rate and catheter length. Flow rates at an intra-circuit pressure of 300 mmHg were not significantly different between the 45-cm PICC and 20-cm CVC.
conclusionPressure-resistant PICCs can be used for rapid fluid infusion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.