ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Europe2026
Peripheral intravenous catheter use in French emergency departments (CathIRU study): a multicentre cross-sectional study of non-indicated insertion rate and practice patterns.
Article in The Lancet regional health. Europe, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Observational
- Is "Just-in-Case" catheterisation inappropriate or system-driven? A human factors perspective - Authors' reply.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Article
- Is "Just-in-Case" catheterisation inappropriate or system-driven? A human factors perspective.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are widely used in emergency departments (EDs), but many are inserted without subsequent use, exposing patients to avoidable risks and wasting resources. We determined the prevalence of non-indicated PIVCs in French EDs and identified associated patient-, treatment- and unit-specific factors. Methods: We conducted a multicentre, observational, cross-sectional (point prevalence) study across 81 EDs over 48 h in April 2025. Adult patients (age over than 18 years) having PIVC placement during their ED stay were eligible. Patients with an existing PIVC in place, life-threatening and conditions precluding data collection were excluded. For patients receiving multiple PIVCs, only the first successfully inserted PIVC was eligible. The primary outcome was the prevalence of non-indicated PIVCs, defined as (1) no use for fluids, intravenous medication, contrast agents, or blood transfusion administration within 24 h, or (2) absence of predefined high-risk deterioration scenarios. Multivariable regression identified the risk factors. Findings: Among 19,737 ED visits across 81 EDs, and after exclusion of 96 duplicate catheters and 403 catheters with missing primary endpoint, 3909 PIVCs inserted were analysed. Overall, 35% (1368/3910, 95% CI 30-36) were classified as non-indicated. Contributing factors included low-acuity triage and low nurse-to-patient ratios. Protective factors were age over 60 years, known difficult intravenous access (DIVA), high-acuity triage and dedicated vascular access teams. Interpretation: In this study, one-third of PIVCs were non-indicated and were mainly associated with low-acuity clinical presentations and organisational factors. These findings highlight substantial opportunities to improve the appropriateness of PIVC use in emergency care. Funding: French Society of Emergency Medicine (€10,000 for administrative setup and data management).
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.