Skip to main content
AVA 2025 Annual Scientific Meeting Main banner
Icon Legend
This session is not in your schedule.
This session is in your schedule. Click again to remove it.
Presentation Icons
Requires Separate Fee
Requires Separate Fee
Peds/Neo SIG
Peds/Neo SIG
Patient Track
Patient Track
International Speakers
International Speakers
Scientific Poster Presentations
Scientific Poster Presentations
ACCME Credit
ACCME Credit
CRNI Credit
CRNI Credit
On-Demand
On-Demand
Coffee Break
Coffee Break
Reception
Reception
Meal
Meal
Evaluation On-Demand Video Q&A ViewAttendees 92

Abstract Submission

PICC

(E2) General Session: Comparative Analysis of Catheter-to-Vein Ratio Definitions, Calculations, and Methodology: Diameter-Based vs. Area-Based Approaches

Saturday, September 20, 2025
9:45 AM - 10:45 AM ET
Location: Coastal C
Earn 1 CE Hour(s)
ACCME Credit CRNI Credit On-Demand
Disclosure(s):
Hammam Ahmed, RN, MSN, CRNI, CCRN, VA-BC: No financial relationships to disclose
Jennifer L. Acelajado, RN, MSN, AGACNP-BC, VA-BC: No financial relationships to disclose
Roxanne Canicula, MSN, RN, AGACNP-BC, OCN: No financial relationships to disclose
This session provides a critical analysis of the Catheter-to-Vein Ratio (CVR), dissecting the distinct definitions, calculations, and methodologies proposed by Sharp et al. (2015) and Spencer & Mahoney (2017). Participants will engage in an in-depth exploration of the fundamental differences between diameter-based and area-based CVR approaches, addressing the misconception that a 45% CVR threshold applies equally to both diameter-based and area-based calculations.

Learning Objectives:
By the end of this session, participants will be able to:

1. Define the Catheter-to-Vein Ratio (CVR) and explain its clinical significance in peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) placement.
2. Differentiate between diameter-based and area-based CVR calculations by applying fundamental physics principles.
3. Address the misconception that a 45% CVR threshold applies equally to both diameter-based and area-based calculations.
4. Advocate for the adoption of standardized CVR definitions to improve clinical consistency and enhance patient safety.
5. Apply the newly developed CVR harmonization table to reconcile discrepancies between calculation methods.
6. Understand when to use and how to accurately interpret Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis in clinical and statistical contexts.
7. Recognize the need for stricter research controls to better assess the relationship between CVR and thrombus formation.

Learning Objectives:

  • Compare and contrast the definitions and calculation methods of the catheter-to-vein ratio (CVR), highlighting area-based versus diameter-based approaches to improve clinical decision-making.
  • Differentiate between diameter-based and area-based CVR calculations by applying fundamental physics principles.
  • understand the importance of conducting future research with stricter controls to account for factors influencing thrombus formation and advocate for conducting comparative randomized controlled trials (RCTs) across different CVR ranges.
  • Advocate for the adoption of standardized CVR definitions to improve clinical consistency and enhance patient safety.
  • Understand when to use and how to accurately interpret Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis in clinical and statistical contexts.
  • Recognize the need for stricter research controls to better assess the relationship between CVR and thrombus formation.