figures, they dont stop to think that in kids especially fluid resuscitation dose may only be 100's of mls not litres of fluids and you wouldn't use a picc for resusciation anyway. what do they think we're watering the lawn through those things
>>> "Scott Gilbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/20/06 9:03 PM >>> When we discussed "patient assessment issues" with the Interventional Radiologists while working on "Best VAD for Every Patient" the number one selection criteria the was presented by the physician was: "What volume and rate of infusion do you want/need?" First choice was to place he catheter that will give high volume for infusions. Hi volume catheters seems to be an important criteria with physicians.. drilled in during med school or resident training perhaps...more so than vessel capacity to safely maintain the patient in a complication-free zone. Scott ----- Original Message ----- From: "Raye Dillon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 2:46 PM Subject: Re: reverse tapering >i agree with you. i work on peds and we almost never use anything larger > than a 3fr if the nurse inserts but when we send kids to IR for > placement (when one of our staff is not available) they come back with > garden hoses 4s 5s and sometimes 6s. that is totally unnecessary. > >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/19/06 9:21 AM >>> > I think we all need to look at why we think bigger is better. These > large 5 > and 6 Fr caths are causing more thrombosis. What is wrong with the 4fr > being > the norm. unless we need double lumen caths. I am truly concerned when > I read > that there is now a triple lumen PICC. This is especially true in the > elderly > where the veins are smaller. > > Raina Pegg RN > >
