Home >  Blog >  Procedural or Therapy PIVC? A New Framework for Safer, More Patient-Centred Care

Procedural or Therapy PIVC? A New Framework for Safer, More Patient-Centred Care

Posted on 24 November 2026
Procedural or Therapy PIVC? A New Framework for Safer, More Patient-Centred Care

Study Overview

Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are often treated as a single device category, even though the risks and care needs can change substantially depending on how long the catheter is expected to remain in place.

This concept paper proposes a practical framework that separates PIVCs into procedural catheters and therapy catheters, based on expected dwell time and therapeutic purpose. The aim is to support better decisions around device choice, insertion site, materials, maintenance and removal.

Key Points

  • Procedural PIVCs are generally used for less than 24 hours, such as for procedures or short treatments. Their main risks are immediate, including insertion failure, local trauma and short-term complications.
  • Therapy PIVCs are expected to remain for more than 24 hours, or while the patient sleeps. These devices face cumulative risks over time, including phlebitis, occlusion, infection and dressing or securement problems.
  • The framework suggests that these two groups should not always be managed in the same way. Expected dwell time should influence decisions about catheter material, insertion location, securement, surveillance and ongoing care.
  • It also places greater emphasis on matching vascular access to the patient’s treatment plan rather than selecting a PIVC based only on immediate access needs.

Implications

A simple distinction between procedural and therapy PIVCs could help clinicians make more tailored vascular access decisions.

Considering expected dwell time from the outset may support safer device selection, reduce avoidable complications and unnecessary replacements, improve patient comfort and use healthcare resources more efficiently.

The framework also highlights an important gap in many current guidelines, which often provide broad PIVC recommendations without clearly distinguishing between very short-term and longer-term use.

Read more: https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.70347

Authors: Bertrand Drugeon; Claire M. Rickard; Nathan Peters; Vineet Chopra; Olivier Mimoz

Address

Griffith University
Nathan
Queensland
Australia 4111