New peripherally inserted midline catheter: a better alternative for intravenous antibiotic therapy in patients with cystic fibrosis

Risk factors of peripheral venous catheter-related complication and infection in children with bronchopneumonia

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the risk factors associated with the peripheral venous catheter-related complication and infection in children with bronchopneumonia.

METHODS

A total of 185 patients were divided into case group (n = 114) and control group (n = 71) according to the presence of catheter-related infection and complications related to indwelling needle. We performed a multivariate logistic regression analysis to explore the risk factors associated with the infection.

RESULTS

Age was divided into 4 categories (0 < age ≤ 1, 1 < age ≤ 3, 3 < age ≤ 6, age > 6). The case group had a higher percentage of patients with 0 < age ≤ 1 than the control group (21% vs. 9.7%) and the age distribution was significant different between the two groups (P = 0.045). The case group had a longer retention time than the control group (≥ 3 days: 56% vs. 35%, P < 0.001). The results of binary logistics regression analysis revealed that the indwelling time and indwelling site were the factors that influenced the complications or bacterial infection. Among the three indwelling sites, the hand is more prone to infection and indwelling needle-related complications than the head (OR: 2.541, 95% CI 1.032 to 6.254, P = 0.042). The longer the indwelling time, the more likely the infection and indwelling needle related complications (OR: 2.646, 95% CI 1.759 to 3.979, P< 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Indwelling time and indwelling site are the influencing factors of complications or bacterial infection, which should be paid more attention to prevent the catheter-related infection in children with bronchophenumonia.

Not "just" an intravenous line: Consumer perspectives on peripheral intravenous cannulation (PIVC). An international cross-sectional survey of 25 countries

Peripheral intravascular cannula/catheter (PIVC) insertion is a common invasive procedure, but PIVC failure before the end of therapy is unacceptably high. As PIVC failure disrupts treatment and reinsertion can be distressing for the patient, prevention of PIVC failure is an important patient outcome. Consumer participation in PIVC care to prevent failure is an untapped resource. This study aimed to understand consumers’ PIVC experience; establish aspects of PIVC insertion and care relevant to them; and to compare experiences of adult consumers to adult carers of a child. An international, web-based, cross-sectional survey was distributed via social media inviting adult consumers and adult carers of a child under 18 years who had experienced having a PIVC in the last five years (one survey each for adults and adult carers) to complete a 10-item survey. As such, sampling bias is a limitation and results should be carefully considered in light of this. There were 712 respondents from 25 countries, mainly female (87.1%) and adults (80%). A little over 50% of adults described insertion as moderately painful or worse, with level of insertion difficulty (0–10 scale) identified as moderate (median 4, IQR 1, 7). Adult carers reported significantly more pain during insertion and insertion difficulty (both p < 0.001). Rates of first insertion attempt failure were higher in children compared with adults (89/139 [64%] vs 221/554 [40%]; p < 0.001), and 23% of children required ≥ 4 attempts, compared with 9% of adults (p < 0.0001). Three themes from open-ended question emerged: Significance of safe and consistent PIVC care; Importance of staff training and competence; and Value of communication. The PIVC experience can be painful, stressful and frustrating for consumers. Priorities for clinicians and policy makers should include use of pain relief as standard practice to reduce the pain associated with PIVC insertion and developing strategies to increase first PIVC insertion attempt success particularly for children and older consumers.

Securing All intraVenous devices Effectively in hospitalised patients--the SAVE trial: study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Over 70% of all hospital admissions have a peripheral intravenous device (PIV) inserted; however, the failure rate of PIVs is unacceptably high, with up to 69% of these devices failing before treatment is complete. Failure can be due to dislodgement, phlebitis, occlusion/infiltration and/or infection. This results in interrupted medical therapy; painful phlebitis and reinsertions; increased hospital length of stay, morbidity and mortality from infections; and wasted medical/nursing time. Appropriate PIV dressing and securement may prevent many cases of PIV failure, but little comparative data exist regarding the efficacy of various PIV dressing and securement methods. This trial will investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of 4 methods of PIV dressing and securement in preventing PIV failure.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A multicentre, parallel group, superiority randomised controlled trial with 4 arms, 3 experimental groups (tissue adhesive, bordered polyurethane dressing, sutureless securement device) and 1 control (standard polyurethane dressing) is planned. There will be a 3-year recruitment of 1708 adult patients, with allocation concealment until randomisation by a centralised web-based service. The primary outcome is PIV failure which includes any of: dislodgement, occlusion/infiltration, phlebitis and infection. Secondary outcomes include: types of PIV failure, PIV dwell time, costs, device colonisation, skin colonisation, patient and staff satisfaction. Relative incidence rates of device failure per 100 devices and per 1000 device days with 95% CIs will summarise the impact of each dressing, and test differences between groups. Kaplan-Meier survival curves (with log-rank Mantel-Cox test) will compare device failure over time. p Values of <0.05 will be considered significant. Secondary end points will be compared between groups using parametric or non-parametric techniques appropriate to level of measurement.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been received from Queensland Health (HREC/11/QRCH/152) and Griffith University (NRS/46/11/HREC). Results will be published according to the CONSORT statement and presented at relevant conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN); 12611000769987.

How to Establish an Effective Midline Program: A Case Study of 2 Hospitals

Introduction: Establishing an effective midline program involves more than simply learning an insertion technique for a new product. Midline catheters provide a reliable vascular access option for those patients with difficult venous access who would otherwise require multiple venipunctures or the use of higher-risk central lines to maintain access. An effective midline program establishes a protocol for device selection and includes standing orders to facilitate speed to placement.

Methods: Our retrospective descriptive review evaluated the successful integration of midline programs into existing vascular access bedside insertion programs in 2 acute care hospitals. The investigator reviewed a convenience sample of hospital patients. Participants in the study included vascular access team managers and team members from the sample sites.

Results: The results of this 2-hospital study demonstrate successful integration of a midline program into a bedside insertion program with 0 midline-related infections since initiation. Documentation of overall central line-associated bloodstream infection rates for hospital 1 changed from 1.7/1000 catheter-days to 0.2/1000 catheter-days, reflecting a 78% reduction in infections and a projected cost avoidance of $531,570 annually. Both hospitals demonstrated reduced rates of infection following implementation of a midline program.

Conclusions: Midlines have a history of lower risk for both infection and thrombosis compared with central venous devices. Although more research is needed on the more recently developed midline catheters, available evidence suggests that midlines provide a safe and reliable form of vascular access, reducing costs and the risk of infection associated with central venous catheters, especially those placed solely for patients with difficult venous access.

Devices and dressings to secure peripheral venous catheters to prevent complications

BACKGROUND

A peripheral venous catheter (PVC) is typically used for short-term delivery of intravascular fluids and medications. It is an essential element of modern medicine and the most frequent invasive procedure performed in hospitals. However, PVCs often fail before intravenous treatment is completed: this can occur because the device is not adequately attached to the skin, allowing the PVC to fall out, leading to complications such as phlebitis (irritation or inflammation to the vein wall), infiltration (fluid leaking into surrounding tissues) or occlusion (blockage). An inadequately secured PVC also increases the risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), as the pistoning action (moving back and forth in the vein) of the catheter can allow migration of organisms along the catheter and into the bloodstream. Despite the many dressings and securement devices available, the impact of different securement techniques for increasing PVC dwell time is still unclear; there is a need to provide guidance for clinicians by reviewing current studies systematically.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of PVC dressings and securement devices on the incidence of PVC failure.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases to identify reports of relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs): the Cochrane Wounds Group Register (searched 08 April 2015): The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to March 7 2015); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, March 7 2015); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to March 7 2015); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to March 8 2015).

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs or cluster RCTs comparing different dressings or securement devices for the stabilisation of PVCs. Cross-over trials were ineligible for inclusion, unless data for the first treatment period could be obtained.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for missing information. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs (1539 participants) in this review. Trial sizes ranged from 50 to 703 participants. These six trials made four comparisons, namely: transparent dressings versus gauze; bordered transparent dressings versus a securement device; bordered transparent dressings versus tape; and transparent dressing versus sticking plaster. There is very low quality evidence of fewer catheter dislodgements or accidental removals with transparent dressings compared with gauze (two studies, 278 participants, RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.92, P = 0.03%). The relative effects of transparent dressings and gauze on phlebitis (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.68) and infiltration (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.33) are unclear. The relative effects on PVC failure of a bordered transparent dressing and a securement device have been assessed in only one small study and these were unclear. There was very low quality evidence from the same single study of less frequent dislodgement or accidental catheter removal with bordered transparent dressings than securement devices (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.63) but more phlebitis with bordered dressings (RR 8.11, 95% CI 1.03 to 64.02) (very low quality evidence). A small single study compared bordered transparent dressings with tape and found very low quality evidence of more PVC failure with the bordered dressing (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.11) but the relative effects on dislodgement were not clear (very low quality evidence). The relative effects of transparent dressings and a sticking plaster have only been compared in one small study and are unclear. More high quality RCTs are required to determine the relative effects of alternative PVC dressings and securement devices.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is not clear if any one dressing or securement device is better than any other in securing peripheral venous catheters. There is a need for further, independent high quality trials to evaluate the many traditional as well as the newer, high use products. Given the large cost differences between some different dressings and securement devices, future trials should include a robust cost-effectiveness analysis.

Guideline for Prevention of Intravascular-Device–Related Infections

The “Guideline for Prevention of Intravascular Device-Related Infections” is designed to reduce the incidence of intravascular device-related infections by providing an over view of the evidence for recommendations considered prudent by consensus of Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisor y Committee (HICPAC) members. This two-part document updates and replaces the previously published Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) Guideline for Intravascular Infections (Am J Infect Control1983;11:183-199). Part I, “Intravascular Device-Related Infections: An Over view” discusses many of the issues and controversies in intravascular-device use and maintenance. These issues include definitions and diagnosis of catheter-related infection, appropriate barrier precautions during catheter insertion, inter vals for replacement of catheters, intravenous (IV) fluids and administration sets, catheter-site care, the role of specialized IV personnel, and the use of prophylactic antimi-crobials, flush solutions, and anticoagulants. Part II, “Recommendations for Prevention of Intravascular Device-Related Infections” provides consensus recommendations of the HICPAC for the prevention and control of intravascular device-related infections. A working draft of this document also was reviewed by experts in hospital infection control, internal medicine, pediatrics, and intravenous therapy. However, all recommendations contained in the guideline may not reflect the opinion of all reviewers.

Risk factors for peripherally inserted central venous catheter complications in children

IMPORTANCE

Peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) are prone to infectious, thrombotic, and mechanical complications. These complications are associated with morbidity, so data are needed to inform quality improvement efforts.

OBJECTIVES

To characterize the epidemiology of and to identify risk factors for complications necessitating removal of PICCs in children.

DESIGN

Cohort study.

SETTING

Johns Hopkins Children's Center, Baltimore, Maryland.

PARTICIPANTS

Hospitalized children who had a PICC inserted outside of the neonatal intensive care unit (ICU) from January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2009.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Complications necessitating PICC removal as recorded by the PICC Team.

RESULTS

During the study period, 2574 PICCs were placed in 1807 children. Complications necessitating catheter removal occurred in 534 PICCs (20.8%) during 46 021 catheter-days (11.6 complications per 1000 catheter-days). These included accidental dislodgement (4.6%), infection (4.3%), occlusion (3.7%), local infiltration (3.0%), leakage (1.5%), breakage (1.4%), phlebitis (1.2%), and thrombosis (0.5%). From 2003 to 2009, complications decreased by 15% per year (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.81-0.89). In adjusted analysis, all noncentral PICC tip locations-midline (IRR 4.59, 95% CI, 3.69-5.69), midclavicular (2.15; 1.54-2.98), and other (3.26; 1.72-6.15)-compared with central tip location were associated with an increased risk of complications. Pediatric ICU exposure and age younger than 1 year were independently associated with complications necessitating PICC removal.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Noncentral PICC tip locations, younger age, and pediatric ICU exposure were independent risk factors for complications necessitating PICC removal. Despite reductions in PICC complications, further efforts are needed to prevent PICC-associated complications in children.

Peripherally inserted central catheters

Peripherally inserted central catheters are increasingly used in the pediatric and adolescent population for long-term central access. This article reviews the indications, insertion techniques, and complications of peripherally inserted central catheter lines.

Guidelines for the Prevention of Intravascular Catheter–Related Infections

These guidelines have been developed for practitioners who insert catheters and for persons responsible for surveillance and control of infections in hospital, outpatient, and home health-care settings. This report was prepared by a working group comprising members from professional organizations representing the disciplines of critical care medicine, infectious diseases, health-care infection control, surgery, anesthesiology, interventional radiology, pulmonary medicine, pediatric medicine, and nursing. The working group was led by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), in collaboration with the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA), Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA), Surgical Infection Society (SIS), American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), American Thoracic Society (ATS), American Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists (ASCCA), Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), Infusion Nurses Society (INS), Oncology Nursing Society (ONS), Society of Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology (SCVIR), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and is intended to replace the Guideline for Prevention of Intravascular Device–Related Infections published in 1996. These guidelines are intended to provide evidence-based recommendations for preventing catheter-related infections. Major areas of emphasis include 1) educating and training health-care providers who insert and maintain catheters; 2) using maximal sterile barrier precautions during central venous catheter insertion; 3) using a 2% chlorhexidine preparation for skin antisepsis; 4) avoiding routine replacement of central venous catheters as a strategy to prevent infection; and 5) using antiseptic/antibiotic impregnated short-term central venous catheters if the rate of infection is high despite adherence to other strategies (i.e., education and training, maximal sterile barrier precautions, and 2% chlorhexidine for skin antisepsis). These guidelines also identify performance indicators that can be used locally by health-care institutions or organizations to monitor their success in implementing these evidence-based recommendations.

Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. The Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S

These guidelines have been developed for practitioners who insert catheters and for persons responsible for surveillance and control of infections in hospital, outpatient, and home health-care settings. This report was prepared by a working group comprising members from professional organizations representing the disciplines of critical care medicine, infectious diseases, health-care infection control, surgery, anesthesiology, interventional radiology, pulmonary medicine, pediatric medicine, and nursing. The working group was led by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), in collaboration with the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA), Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA), Surgical Infection Society (SIS), American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), American Thoracic Society (ATS), American Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists (ASCCA), Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), Infusion Nurses Society (INS), Oncology Nursing Society (ONS), Society of Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology (SCVIR), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and is intended to replace the Guideline for Prevention of Intravascular Device-Related Infections published in 1996. These guidelines are intended to provide evidence-based recommendations for preventing catheter-related infections. Major areas of emphasis include 1) educating and training health-care providers who insert and maintain catheters; 2) using maximal sterile barrier precautions during central venous catheter insertion; 3) using a 2% chlorhexidine preparation for skin antisepsis; 4) avoiding routine replacement of central venous catheters as a strategy to prevent infection; and 5) using antiseptic/antibiotic impregnated short-term central venous catheters if the rate of infection is high despite adherence to other strategies (ie, education and training, maximal sterile barrier precautions, and 2% chlorhexidine for skin antisepsis). These guidelines also identify performance indicators that can be used locally by health-care institutions or organizations to monitor their success in implementing these evidence-based recommendations.

Pediatric peripherally inserted central catheters: complication rates related to catheter tip location

OBJECTIVE

To compare complication rates between central venous catheter tip location and noncentral tip location after peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) placement in children.

METHODS

Between 1994 and 1998, data from all children who underwent PICC placement were analyzed. Patient demographics, catheter characteristics, catheter duration, infusate composition, and catheter complications were entered prospectively into a computerized database. Catheter tip locations were determined by fluoroscopy and were defined as central if they resided in the superior vena cava, right atrium, or high inferior vena cava at or above the level of the diaphragm, and as noncentral if located elsewhere. Differences in complication rates between the central and noncentral groups were analyzed.

RESULTS

Data from a total of 1266 PICCs were analyzed from 1053 patients with a mean age of 6.49 +/-.2 years (range: 0-45.0 years). Of the 1266 PICCs, 1096 (87%) were central in tip location, and 170 (13%) were noncentral in tip location. The central group had 42 complications of 1096 catheters (3.8%), while the noncentral group had 49 complications of 170 catheters (28.8%). Controlling for patient age, catheter size, gender, and catheter duration with a logistic regression model, there remained a statistically significant increased likelihood of complication in the noncentral group versus the central group (adjusted odds ratio: 8.28; 95% confidence interval: 5.11-13.43).

CONCLUSIONS

Centrally placed catheter tips are associated with fewer complications than are noncentrally placed catheter tips. Clinicians should ensure that catheter tips reside centrally after PICC placement in infants and children.

Peripherally inserted central venous catheters: success of scalp-vein access in infants and newborns

The authors assessed the feasibility of placing peripherally inserted central venous catheters via scalp veins in infants and newborns. In 60 newborns and infants, aged 3 days to 10 months, placement of 62 2-F peripherally inserted central venous catheters was attempted with scalpvein access. The tip location was central in 30 of the 62 catheters (48%) and long peripheral intravenous in 17 (27%); access failed in 15 (24%). Scalp-vein access for peripherally inserted central venous catheters offers a safe and effective alternative route for gaining central venous access in infants and newborns.

Radiologic placement of long-term subcutaneous venous access ports in children

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to review the results of radiologically placed subcutaneous venous access ports in a pediatric population requiring long-term venous access.

CONCLUSION

Sixteen of 20 patients had no significant problems with their ports. In the pediatric population, radiologically placed subcutaneous venous access ports offer a high success rate, a low complication rate, and significant cost savings over surgically placed ports.

Comparison of vascular access devices

OBJECTIVE

To provide an overview of venous access device designs and methods of insertion and removal.

CONCLUSIONS

Venous access devices are indicated for many patients who require reliable long-term venous access. Three types of venous access devices are available including nontunneled, tunneled, and implanted ports. Since their introduction into clinical practice, the widespread use of these devices has had an enormous impact on cancer treatment by decreasing the overuse of peripheral veins while allowing for more flexibility and choice of the type of device used. Although numerous devices are available, each offers unique designs and performance expectations. Each type of device has similar features and can be used for intravenous drug and nutritional therapy, administration of blood products, and withdrawal of blood.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Even if only a single device is used in a given setting, the nurse must have a basic understanding of all types of venous access devices. It is imperative that the nurse be fully cognizant of the anatomic position and structure of the major vessels associated with the central venous system, especially for the insertion of peripheral central catheters. Understanding the venous system and venous access design can assist in preventing or assessing potential complications.