Comparison of complications between pediatric peripherally inserted central catheter placement techniques

Comparing conventional and modified Seldinger techniques using a micro-insertion kit for PICC placement in neonates: a retrospective cohort study

Objective

This study aims to assess the comparative effectiveness of a conventional splitting needle or a peelable cannula vs. the modified Seldinger technique (MST) by utilizing a dedicated micro-insertion kit across various clinically significant metrics, including insertion success, complications, and catheter-related infections.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study using an anonymized data set spanning 3 years (2017-2019) in a large tertiary-level neonatal intensive care unit in Qatar.

Results

A total of 1,445 peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) insertion procedures were included in the analysis, of which 1,285 (89%) were successful. The primary indication for insertion was mainly determined by the planned therapy duration, with the saphenous vein being the most frequently selected blood vessel. The patients exposed to MST were generally younger (7 ± 15 days vs. 11 ± 26 days), but exhibited similar mean weights and gestational ages. Although not statistically significant, the MST demonstrated slightly higher overall and first-attempt insertion success rates compared to conventional methods (91 vs. 88%). However, patients undergoing conventional insertion techniques experienced a greater incidence of catheter-related complications (p < 0.001). There were 39 cases of catheter-related bloodstream infections (CLABSI) in the conventional group (3.45/1,000 catheter days) and eight cases in the MST group (1.06/1,000 catheter days), indicating a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001). Throughout the study period, there was a noticeable shift toward the utilization of the MST kit for PICC insertions.

Conclusion

The study underscores the viability of MST facilitated by an all-in-one micro kit for neonatal PICC insertion. Utilized by adept and trained inserters, this approach is associated with improved first-attempt success rates, decreased catheter-related complications, and fewer incidences of CLABSI. However, while these findings are promising, it is imperative to recognize potential confounding factors. Therefore, additional prospective multicenter studies are recommended to substantiate these results and ascertain the comprehensive benefits of employing the all-in-one kit.

Placement of peripherally inserted central catheter through upper versus lower limb vein in neonates: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

Peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) is an important treatment for the drug and nutrition administration in neonates. We aimed to evaluate the effects and safety of PICC placement through upper versus lower limb vein in neonates, to provide insights into the clinical PICC nursing care.

DESIGN

A meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, Science Direct, China national knowledge infrastructure, Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, China Weipu Database, China Biomedical Literature Database for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the placement of PICC via upper limb and lower limb venipuncture. Two reviewers independently evaluated and cross-checked the quality of the included studies in accordance with the quality standards of the Cochrane Manual. We used RevMan 5.3 software for statistical processing.

RESULTS

A total of 12 RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. Meta-analysis indicated that compared with upper limb veins, PICC insertion through lower limb veins is beneficial to increase the one-time puncture success rate (relative risk [RR]  =  0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68-0.79) and the indwelling time (mean difference [MD] =  -3.60, 95% CI: -5.35 to -1.86), reduce the operation time (MD =  10.37, 95% CI: 7.48-13.26), estimated bleeding volume (MD =  0.55, 95% CI: 0.34-0.75), incidence of catheter ectopia (RR  =  2.46, 95% CI: 1.81-3.35), PICC-associated infection (RR  =  2.82, 95% CI: 1.65-4.83), exosmosis (RR  =  2.45, 95% CI: 1.49-4.04, p < .001) and phlebitis (RR  =  1.40, 95% CI: 1.03-1.90). No significant difference in the Incidence of catheter obstruction between the upper and lower limb veins (RR  =  1.20, 95% CI: 0.73-1.97, p = .48) was found.

PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

There are certain advantages in neonatal PICC puncture through the lower limb vein. The lower limb vein may be the preferred choice for neonatal PICC puncture.

Implementation of modified Seldinger technology for percutaneous catheterization in critically ill newborns

OBJECTIVE

To describe the implementation of Modified Seldinger Technology for percutaneous catheterization in critically ill newborns.

METHOD

A quasi-experimental before- and-after study, carried out with neonatologist nurses in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.

RESULTS

Seven nurses participated in the research. Catheter pre-insertion, insertion and maintenance were assessed using the conventional and modified Seldinger technique. Reliability was satisfactory in pre-test, 5.40 (Md = 6.00), and post-test, 5.94 (Md = 7.00), and perfect in the items about device insertion and maintenance. There was low assertiveness in the items on indication, microintroduction procedure via ultrasound, limb repositioning and disinfection of connections/connectors.

CONCLUSION

Despite the Modified Seldinger Technique expanding some stages of execution over the traditional method of percutaneous catheterization, nurses were more assertive after theoretical-practical training. The technology was implemented and is in the process of being implemented in the health service.

A meta-analysis of the comparison of phlebitis between midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters in infusion therapy

AIMS

To compare the risk of phlebitis between midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters in infusion therapy with a meta-analysis.

DESIGN

This was a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, CNKI, WanFang, VIP and SinoMed were searched from inception to May 2020.

REVIEW METHODS

All studies comparing the risk of phlebitis between midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters were included. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, two authors independently assessed the literature and extracted the data. Meta-analyses were conducted to generate estimates of phlebitis risk in patients with midline catheters verse peripherally inserted central catheters, and publication bias was evaluated with RevMan 5.3.

RESULTS

A total of seven studies were collected, involving 1377 participants. The incidence of phlebitis with midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters was 1.52% and 3.41%. Meta-analysis showed that the incidence of phlebitis has no significant difference between midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters. The sensitivity analysis shows that the results from this meta-analysis are fair in overall studies. All studies have no significant publication bias.

CONCLUSION

This study provides the first systematic assessment of the risk of phlebitis between midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters. The incidence of phlebitis has no significant difference between them. There are many factors to consider when choosing vascular access devices.

Complications and Costs of Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheters Compared With Implantable Port Catheters for Cancer Patients: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and implantable port catheters (IPCs) are 2 most common central venous access for cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. However, no specific evidence exists to guide practitioners on safety and less cost.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the differences of complications and costs of PICC and IPC in the treatment of cancer patients with chemotherapy and to provide a basis for better clinical decision making.

METHODS

All the cohort studies were searched in the Cochrane Library, JBI, PubMed, Elsevier, Web of Science, CINAHL, CBM, and CNKI from inception to July 2018. Two reviewers screened and selected trials, evaluated quality, and extracted data. Meta-analysis and description of the outcomes were performed by using the RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

A total of 761 articles were retrieved, with 15 articles meeting eligibility criteria. Outcome analysis showed no difference in 1-puncture success rate. Peripherally inserted central catheter use was associated with higher complication rates than IPC, including occlusion, infection, malposition, catheter-related thrombosis, extravasation, phlebitis, and accidental removal rate. The life span of IPC was longer than that of PICC, and the costs of IPC were lower.

CONCLUSIONS

Implantable port catheter has advantages over PICC in reducing cancer patients' complications and less cost in terms of long-term cancer chemotherapy.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

In terms of safety, the results provide evidence for practitioners to choose which type of central venous catheters is better for cancer chemotherapy patients. In terms of costs, practitioners need to make decisions about which type of central venous catheters has less cost.

Cateter venoso central de inserção periférica em oncologia pediátrica: revisão de escopo

Resumo Objetivo: Conhecer a produção científica sobre a utilização e manutenção do cateter central de inserção periférica (CCIP) em crianças e adolescentes em tratamento oncológico. Método: Revisão do tipo Scoping Review, segundo o método adaptado e proposto por Levac, Colquhoun e O’Brien. Foram percorridas cinco etapas: identificação da questão de pesquisa; buscas por estudos relevantes; seleção de estudos; extração dos dados; agrupamento, resumo e apresentação dos resultados. Utilizaram-se as bases de dados PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, LILACS e Embase. Foram incluídos artigos de revisão da literatura ou originais, de abordagem quantitativa ou qualitativa, que focalizassem o cateter venoso central de inserção periférica em crianças e adolescentes com câncer, em qualquer fase do tratamento oncológico e contexto de cuidado, publicados em português, inglês e espanhol, no período de 2006 a 2017. Resultados: Buscas nas bases de dados capturaram 609 artigos únicos, dos quais nove compuseram a amostra final. Foram elaborados cinco temas principais relacionados à utilização do cateter venoso central de inserção periférica: indicação, técnica de inserção, manutenção do cateter, complicações relacionadas e desfechos do uso. Os resultados permitem sintetizar as recomendações para a utilização deste dispositivo no que se refere, sobretudo, a: terapêutica e tipo de neoplasia, veias de escolhas, tipos de curativos, principais complicações e desfechos. Conclusão: O cateter venoso central de inserção periférica mostra-se uma opção segura e confiável para a terapia endovenosa na população pediátrica oncológica. O presente estudo contribui por tornar clara a indicação de sua utilização para tal população e apontar temas a serem explorados em futuros estudos empíricos.