Long peripheral catheters: Tell us what you think

The use of ultrasound to guide peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) insertion can improve insertion success in patients with difficult venous access (DIVA).1 Ultrasound-guided insertion success rates vary from 76–100%.1 PIVCs inserted in deep brachial or basilic veins without ultrasound frequently result in infiltration and dislodgement, leading to catheter failure in DIVA patients.2

Multiple factors can contribute to PIVC insertion success, including:

  1. Choice of vein3,4
  2. Selection of the most appropriate vein and insertion site4
  3. Right vein/PIVC gauge ratio4
  4. Length of catheter in the vein3
  5. Selection of PIVC4

Pandurangadu et al. demonstrated that the percentage of PIVC dwelling in the vein may impact catheter survival in a prospective, observational study.3 They recorded the highest failure rates when under 30% of the PIVC remained in the vein.3 When over 65% of the catheter remained in the vein, PIVCs had the highest survival rates.3

Long peripheral catheters (LPCs) may offer advantages over standard-length PIVCs in deep vein placements with or without ultrasound when dwell is expected for more than a week.5 Longer PIVCs may reduce high failure rates.2

Long peripheral catheters

Compared with standard-length PIVCs, LPCs have shown lower rates of infiltration,2 dislodgement,2 extravasation5, phlebitis5 and catheter failure.2 They also had better catheter survival rates in patients with DIVA.1

LPCs come in several different lengths.5 They can be used in a variety of care settings and don’t require extra training for vascular access professionals who already have experience with ultrasound-guided standard-length PIVC insertion.1 Now, we want to hear what you think of them.

What do you think of long peripheral catheters?

We need your help. If you place PIVCs, we’d love to get your opinions on LPCs. Usually, you’re the one asking the questions. This time, we want to ask you some.

Please give us 2 minutes of your time to better understand LPCs.

Your feedback is very valuable to us. We’re counting on feedback from healthcare professionals who place PIVCs to help us improve vascular access management. We’re all ears!


  1. Bahl A, Hijazi M, Chen NW, Lachapelle-Clavette L, Price J. Ultralong Versus Standard Long Peripheral Intravenous Catheters: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Ultrasonographically Guided Catheter Survival. Ann Emerg Med. 2020;76(2):134-142. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2019.11.013
  2. Elia F, Ferrari G, Molino P, et al. Standard-length catheters vs long catheters in ultrasound-guided peripheral vein cannulation. Am J Emerg Med. 2012;30(5):712-716. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2011.04.019
  3. Pandurangadu AV, Tucker J, Brackney AR, Bahl A. Ultrasound-guided intravenous catheter survival impacted by amount of catheter residing in the vein. Emerg Med J EMJ. 2018;35(9):550-555. doi:10.1136/emermed-2017-206803
  4. Gorski LA, Hadaway L, Hagle ME, et al. Infusion Therapy Standards of Practice, 8th Edition. J Infus Nurs Off Publ Infus Nurses Soc. 2021;44(1S Suppl 1):S1-S224. doi:10.1097/NAN.0000000000000396
  5. Pittiruti M, Van Boxtel T, Scoppettuolo G, et al. European recommendations on the proper indication and use of peripheral venous access devices (the ERPIUP consensus): A WoCoVA project. J Vasc Access. 2021;24(1):165-182. doi:10.1177/11297298211023274


This list of references to third-party peer-reviewed material and the sites they are hosted on are provided for your reference and convenience only, and do not imply any review or endorsement of the material or any association with their operators.  The Third-Party References (and the Web sites to which they link) may contain information that is inaccurate, incomplete, or outdated. Your access and use of the Third Party Sites (and any Web sites to which they link) is solely at your own risk.