ReviewEuropean journal of pediatrics2026
Peripheral venous access in the neonate: current evidence, persistent uncertainties, and proposal of a structured insertion bundle.
Review in European journal of pediatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peripheral venous access devices are the most frequently inserted invasive devices in neonatal intensive care, yet fewer than half of them complete the therapy for which they were placed, and their mean dwell time is between 32 and 36 h. Despite this, they have attracted far less attention than central venous access devices: insertion and maintenance practices remain heterogeneous, rarely neonate-specific, and almost never standardized. This narrative review examines the current evidence on indications, device choice, insertion technique, securement, surveillance, and complications of peripheral venous access in the newborn. Evidence suggests that polyurethane outperforms polytetrafluoroethylene; the largest available cohort study supports 26G as the default caliber, including for transfusion; cyanoacrylate securement, structured pre-procedural vein assessment, and dedicated vascular access teams are each associated with better outcomes. Much of this evidence, however, comes from retrospective single-center studies, and important questions-such as the potential advantages of integrated devices or of long peripheral catheters, the caliber-to-vein relationship, and objective detection of infiltration-remain open.
conclusionOn this basis, we propose a protocol for Safe Insertion of Peripheral Venous Catheters (SIPVeC), a seven-step insertion bundle formatted the same way as the protocols already available for umbilical and central devices in the neonate. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Peripheral venous access devices are the most used vascular access device in neonates, yet most fail before therapy is completed. • Insertion and maintenance practices remain heterogeneous and are rarely neonate-specific. WHAT IS NEW: • Evidence now favors polyurethane, 26G devices, structured vein assessment, and cyanoacrylate securement. • The SIPVeC protocol translates these elements into a reproducible seven-step insertion bundle for peripheral devices in neonates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42860492What 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.