Kirby Qin

Dr. Kirby Qin

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

10Years (2017-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
28 December 2018 in The Journal of Vascular Access
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
KQKirby Qin
Kirby Qin
RNR.M. Nataraja
R.M. Nataraja
MPMaurizio Pacilli
Maurizio Pacilli
Long peripheral catheters are 6–15 cm peripheral dwelling catheters that are inserted via a catheter-over-needle or direct Seldinger (catheter-over-guidewire) technique. When inserted in the upper extremity, the distal tip terminates before reaching the axilla, typically no further than the mid-upper arm. This is distinct from a midline catheter, which is inserted via a modified Seldinger technique and terminates at the axilla. The nomenclature of this catheter is confusing and inconsistent. We have identified over a dozen labels in the literature, all describing the same device. These include ‘15 cm catheter’, ‘catheter inserted with a Seldinger method’, ‘extended dwell/midline peripheral catheter’, ‘Leaderflex line’, ‘long catheter’, ‘long IV catheter’, ‘long peripheral cannula’, ‘long peripheral catheter’, ‘long peripheral venous catheter’, ‘long polyurethane catheter’, ‘midline cannula’, ‘mini-midline’, ‘peripheral intravenous catheter’, ‘Seldinger catheter’, ‘short midline catheter’, ‘short long line’ and ‘ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheter’. The purpose of this editorial is to achieve some level of standardisation in the nomenclature of this device. Is it time to address the confusion? We suggest adopting ‘long peripheral catheter’. However, we encourage discussion and debate in reaching a consensus.

1 July 2022 in Journal of Urology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
KQKirby Qin
Kirby Qin
LQLiang G. Qu
Liang G. Qu
Purpose:The Testicular Workup for Ischaemia and Suspected Torsion (TWIST) score is a seven-point tool to evaluate acute scrotal pain. Parameters include testicular swelling (2 points), hard testis ...

12 June 2020 in The Journal of Vascular Access
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
KQKirby Qin
Kirby Qin
NENicholas Ensor
Nicholas Ensor
RBRichard Barnes
Richard Barnes
AEAnna Englin
Anna Englin
RNRamesh M Nataraja
Ramesh M Nataraja
MPMaurizio Pacilli
Maurizio Pacilli
Background: Long peripheral catheters are peripheral intravenous catheters of 6–15 cm in length. They are commonly inserted into the forearm, antecubital fossa or upper arm using a direct Seldinger technique. They have proven to be valuable for peripheral intravenous catheters, particularly in patients with difficult intravenous access. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting the use of long peripheral catheters. The following keywords were used: ‘long’, ‘Seldinger’, ‘guidewire’, ‘peripheral’, ‘venous’, ‘intravenous’, ‘IV’, ‘vascular’, ‘cannula’ and ‘catheter’. Results: Three hundred forty-one publications were identified; 16 were included in the systematic review. There were 11 adult studies and 5 paediatric studies documenting 1288 long peripheral catheters in 1271 patients. Majority of studies (12/16) were conducted in acute care settings, (emergency department, n = 6; intensive care unit, n = 3; high dependency unit, n = 1; surgical unit, n = 2). The most frequently studied long peripheral catheter was 8 cm in length and 20 G in size. Nine studies recruited patients with difficult intravenous access; 11 studies used ultrasound guidance. Insertion success rate and mean procedural time ranged between 86% and 100% and 8 and 16.8 minutes, respectively. Average catheter duration ranged between 4 and 14.7 days (mean) and 1.1 and 9 days (median). Catheter failure occurred in 4.3–52.5% of long peripheral catheters, with leakage, infiltration and dislodgement being the most frequent causes of failure. In 3 randomised controlled trials, long peripheral catheters outperformed peripheral intravenous catheters in terms of duration and failure rate. Conclusion: Long peripheral catheters are safe and reliable in both adults and children. In addition, long peripheral catheters may provide improved quality of care over peripheral intravenous catheters for multi-day intravenous therapy.

20 October 2020 in The Journal of Vascular Access
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
KQKirby Qin
Kirby Qin
MPMauro Pittiruti
Mauro Pittiruti
RNRamesh M Nataraja
Ramesh M Nataraja
MPMaurizio Pacilli
Maurizio Pacilli
Background: Peripheral intravenous access is no longer limited to the standard intravenous catheter (cannula). Devices varying in length, material and insertion technique, are increasingly accessible. There is substantial variability surrounding the nomenclature and use of these devices in the literature. We wished to understand the attitude of vascular access specialists towards the nomenclature and use of peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs), long peripheral catheters (LPCs) and midline catheters (MCs). Methods: A 15-question electronic survey was sent to members of the Association of Vascular Access (AVA) regarding the nomenclature and use of PIVCs, LPCs and MCs. Results: A total of 228 participants completed the survey. Approximately two-thirds of respondents use LPCs (65.8%) and MCs (71.9%) in their clinical practice. The most common indication for LPCs was difficult venous access (56.5%), while the most common indication for MCs was medium-term (1–4 weeks) intravenous therapy (62.7%). The majority of participants (57.9%) agreed with the following classification of peripheral intravenous devices: PIVCs: 2 to 6 cm in length, terminating distal to the axilla; LPCs: 6 to 15 cm in length, terminating distal to the axilla; MCs: 15–25 cm in length, terminating in the axilla. Participants suggested that the length of the catheter should be considered a general recommendation, as LPCs and MCs should be primarily differentiated by tip location. Conclusions: The majority of vascular access specialists from AVA have incorporated LPCs and MCs into their repertoire of peripheral venous access tools. We envisage that their use will increase as the clinical community becomes more familiar with these devices.

15 February 2024 in Medical Journal of Australia
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
JPJessica Paynter
Jessica Paynter
KQKirby Qin
Kirby Qin
JBJanelle Brennan
Janelle Brennan
DHDavid J Hunter‐Smith
David J Hunter‐Smith
WRWarren M Rozen
Warren M Rozen
Summary: Rural surgery is most commonly provided by general surgeons to the 29% of people (7 million) living in rural Australia. The provision of rural general surgery to enable equitable and safe surgical care for rural Australians is a multifaceted issue concerning recruitment, training, retention, surgical procedures and surgical outcomes. Sustaining the rural general surgical workforce will be dependent upon growing an increased number of resident rural general surgeons, as well as changed models of care, with a need for ongoing review to track the outcomes of these changes. To increase recruitment, rural general surgical training must improve to be less stressful for trainees and to be incorporated alongside a rural‐facing generalist curriculum. Rural general surgical outcomes (excluding some oncology conditions) achieve comparable results to metropolitan centres. Access to, and outcomes of, surgical oncology services continues to be inequitable for rural Australians and should be a major focus for improved service delivery.

6 April 2022 in Annals of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
TMTaha Mollah
Taha Mollah
HCHarry Christie
Harry Christie
MCMarc Chia
Marc Chia
PMPrasenjit Modak
Prasenjit Modak
KJKaushik Joshi
Kaushik Joshi
KQKirby Qin
Kirby Qin
Taha Mollah, Harry Christie, Marc Chia, Prasenjit Modak, Kaushik Joshi, Trived Soni, Kirby R. Qin. Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg -0001;0:. https://doi.org/10.14701/ahbps.22-007