{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.033932135728542916, 'fraction_numerical': 0.031936127744510975, 'mean_word_length': 5.348101265822785, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 3, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Fine-bore cannulas for peripheral intravenous nutrition: polyurethane or silicone?

The peripheral intravenous route is being used more frequently for the administration of short- to medium-term parenteral nutritional support. Dedicated fine bore cannulas have significantly reduced the incidence of thrombophlebitis. Currently available cannulas are made of polyurethane or silicone. We present our experience with a 23G silicone cannula and a 22G polyurethane alternative. Fifty-four silicone cannulas were used with a median survival of only 3 days, compared with 7 days for 90 polyurethane cannulas (P < 0.0001). Only 22% of silicone cannulas were removed electively compared with 56% of polyurethane cannulas (P < 0.00005). The most common cause for silicone cannula removal was occlusion (48%), which occurred in only 8% of polyurethane cannulas (P < 0.00001). Polyurethane cannulas develop fewer complications and are more effective in the delivery of peripheral intravenous nutritional support.