Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters in the ICU: A Retrospective Study of Adult Medical Patients in 52 Hospitals

Risk of deep venous thrombosis associated with peripherally inserted central catheter: A retrospective cohort study of 11.588 catheters in Brazil

INTRODUCTION

Deep Venous Thrombosis (DVT) due to Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC) is one of the most threatening complications after device insertion.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the rate of PICC-associated DVT and analyze the risk factors associated with this event in cancer and critically ill patients.

METHODS

We conducted a descriptive, retrospective cohort study with 11,588 PICCs from December 2014 to December 2019. Patients ≥ 18 years receiving a PICC were included. Pre-and post-puncture variables were collected and a logistic regression was used to identify the independent factors associated with the risk of DVT.

RESULTS

The DVT prevalence was 1.8% (n = 213). The median length of PICC use was 15.3 days. The median age was 75 years (18; 107) and 52% were men, 53.5% were critically ill and 29.1% oncological patients. The most common indications for PICC's were intravenous antibiotics (79.1%). Notably, 91.5% of PICC showed a catheter-to-vein ratio of no more than 33%. The tip location method with intracavitary electrocardiogram was used in 43%. Most catheters (67.9%) were electively removed at the end of intravenous therapy. After adjusting for cancer profile ou chemotherapy, regression anaysis revealed that age (OR 1.011; 95% CI 1.002-1.020), previous DVT (OR 1.96; 95% CI 1.12-3.44) and obstruction of the device (OR 1.60; 95% CI 1.05-2.42) were independent factors associated with PICC-associated DVT, whereas the use of an anticoagulant regimen was a protective variable (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.54-0.99).

CONCLUSION

PICC is a safe and suitable intravenous device for medium and long-term therapy, with low rates of DVT even in a cohort of critically ill and cancer patients.

A feasible and safe standardized protocol for ultrasound and intracavitary electrocardiogram-based tip navigation and tip location during placement of peripherally inserted central catheters

BACKGROUND

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are performed for medium and long term intravenous therapy. The most recent guidelines recommend the use of ultrasound-guided venipuncture to reduce surgery-related complications. In recent years, bedside ultrasound has also been used as evidence of accuracy in tip navigation and tip positioning. This paper is aimed to investigate using tip navigation with the ultrasonic technique and intracavitary electrocardiogram during the catheterization, and to suggest a feasible and safe standardized protocol for clinical practice.

METHODS

A total of 1727 tumor clients who suffered from combined the ultrasonic technique with intracavitary electrocardiogram (ECG + US group) to confirm the tip location of PICC were included in Peking Union Medical College Hospital in 2020. And based on electronic medical records according to the types of cancer as 1:1 to select 1727 cases who only underwent electrocardiogram (ECG group) to verify the tip location of catheters with the same team in 2019. Compared two groups of purpose of catheter, insertion site of upper limbs, times of puncture and delivery catheters, tip location and malposition of peripherally inserted central catheter, and analysis of the safety and feasibility.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the two groups in the purpose of catheter, insertion site of upper limbs, times of puncture, and delivery catheters. The percentage of optimal tip location in ECG + US group was significantly higher than that in ECG group, and the rate of malposition of catheters was obviously lower than that in ECG group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Tip navigation based with ultrasound and intracavitary electrocardiogram has high accuracy to confirm tip location of PICC, and it is also feasible and safe, which can not only to make up for the deficiency of patients without surface P waves who could not be applied ECG but also to fit for all patients.

Inappropriate Use of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters in Pediatrics: A Multisite Study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to describe how the current practice of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) use in hospitalized children aligns with the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (miniMAGIC) in Children recommendations, explore variation across sites, and describe the population of children who do not receive appropriate PICCs.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted at 4 children's hospitals in the United States. Children with PICCs placed January 2019 to December 2021 were included. Patients in the NICU were excluded. PICCs were categorized using the miniMAGIC in Children classification as inappropriate, uncertain appropriateness and appropriate.

RESULTS

Of the 6051 PICCs identified, 9% (n = 550) were categorized as inappropriate, 9% (n = 550) as uncertain appropriateness, and 82% (n = 4951) as appropriate. The number of PICCs trended down over time, but up to 20% of PICCs each year were not appropriate, with significant variation between sites. Within inappropriate or uncertain appropriateness PICCs (n = 1100 PICC in 1079 children), median (interquartile range) patient age was 4 (0-11) years, 54% were male, and the main reason for PICC placement was prolonged antibiotic course (56%, n = 611). The most common admitting services requesting the inappropriate/uncertain appropriateness PICCs were critical care 24%, general pediatrics 22%, and pulmonary 20%. Complications resulting in PICC removal were identified in 6% (n = 70) of inappropriate/uncertain PICCs. The most common complications were dislodgement (3%) and occlusion (2%), with infection and thrombosis rates of 1% (n = 10 and n = 13, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the majority of PICCs met appropriateness criteria, a substantial proportion of PICCs were deemed inappropriate or of uncertain appropriateness, illustrating an opportunity for quality improvement.

Brachial Tunneled Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters and the Risk of Catheter Complications: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Situations involving increased workloads and stress (i.e., the COVID-19 pandemic) underline the need for healthcare professionals to minimize patient complications. In the field of vascular access, tunneling techniques are a possible solution. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness of tunneled Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters (tPICCs) to conventional Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters (cPICCs) in terms of bleeding, overall success, procedural time, and late complications.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials without language restrictions were searched using PUBMED®, EMBASE®, EBSCO®, CINAHL®, and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register from August 2022 to August 2023. Five relevant papers (1238 patients) were included.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in overall success and nerve or artery injuries between the two groups (p = 0.62 and p = 0.62, respectively), although cPICCs caused slightly less bleeding (0.23 mL) and had shorter procedural times (2.95 min). On the other hand, tPICCs had a significantly reduced risk of overall complications (p < 0.001; RR0.41 [0.31-0.54] CI 95%), catheter-related thrombosis (p < 0.001; RR0.35 [0.20-0.59] IC 95%), infection-triggering catheter removal (p < 0.001; RR0.33 [0.18-0.61] IC 95%), wound oozing (p < 0.001; RR0.49 [0.37-0.64] IC 95%), and dislodgement (p < 0.001; RR0.4 [0.31-0.54] CI 95%).

CONCLUSIONS

The tunneling technique for brachial access appears to be safe concerning intra-procedural bleeding, overall success, and procedural time, and it is effective in reducing the risk of late complications associated with catheterization.

Use of peripherally inserted central catheters with a dedicated vascular access specialists team versus centrally inserted central catheters in the management of septic shock patients in the ICU

OBJECTIVES

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are increasingly recognized as an alternative to centrally inserted central catheters (CICCs) in critical care, yet the data regarding the safety and feasibility of this choice in septic shock management is growing but still lacking. In this study, we aimed to determine the feasibility, safety, and impact on outcomes of using dedicated vascular access specialist (VAS) teams to insert PICCs versus CICCs on patients admitted to the ICU with septic shock.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Mayo Clinic Rochester Medical ICU and Mayo Clinic Arizona Multidisciplinary ICU from 2013 to 2016.

PATIENTS

All adult patients hospitalized with diagnosis of septic shock excluding patients who declined authorization for review of their medical records, mixed shock states, and readmissions.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS

Comprehensive data regarding septic shock diagnosis and resuscitation were abstracted from electronic medical records. A total of 562 patients with septic shock were included in the study; 215 patients were resuscitated utilizing a PICC and 347 were resuscitated using a CICC. On univariate analysis, the time to central line insertion and time to vasopressor initiation were found to be reduced in those who received PICC at time of ICU admission versus CICC. Other favorable outcomes were also observed in those who received PICC versus CICC including shorter ICU length of stay and lower unadjusted hospital mortality. A multivariable analysis for hospital mortality showed that after adjusting for important covariates, neither the time to central line insertion nor the time to vasopressor initiation was associated with a lower hospital mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Across two tertiary referral centers within the same enterprise, use of a dedicated VAS team for insertion of PICCs for initial resuscitation in patients with septic shock was feasible and associated with shorter time to central venous access and initiation of vasopressors; however, adjusted hospital mortality was not different between the two groups.

Improvement in Nurses' Knowledge of Subcutaneous Catheter Use for Pain Management

BACKGROUND

Nurses often have insufficient knowledge of subcutaneous catheter use for pain management. This quality improvement project evaluated implementation of an evidence-based subcutaneous catheter nursing policy with education to improve pain management for hospitalized patients.

METHOD

A convenience sample of nurses (N = 515) completed a posttest after online training on effective subcutaneous pain management. Patient pain ratings were assessed to evaluate whether they changed after nurses' training.

RESULTS

Posttest scores showed the online learning module effectively contributed to nurses' knowledge of subcutaneous catheter pain management. A statistically significant reduction occurred in patient pain ratings (p < .001) postintervention. The number of patients experiencing moderate or severe pain decreased by 58%, for a significant reduction in pain.

CONCLUSION

An online learning module was successful in educating nurses on pain medication administration through an indwelling subcutaneous catheter. [J Contin Educ Nurs. 2024;55(1):13-20.].

Efficacy of antimicrobial peripherally inserted central catheters in line-associated bloodstream infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several studies have investigated the safety and efficacy of antimicrobial peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), and the results are conflicting. Therefore, in this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to summarize and identify the effect of antimicrobial PICCs on central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) risk.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and Web of Science was performed to identify relevant studies up to December 2022.

RESULTS

A total of 9 studies were included for analysis. There were 7 retrospective/prospective cohort studies and 2 randomized controlled trials. The 9 studies involved 51,373 patients with PICCs. Among these patients, 6,563 (12.8%) antimicrobial-coated/impregnated PICCs and 44,810 (87.2%) nonantimicrobial-impregnated PICCs were inserted. The meta-analysis showed that antimicrobial PICCs had a nonsignificant association with lower CLABSI risk compared with noncoated PICCs (relative risk [RR] = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.43-1.05). In the subgroup analysis, minocycline-rifampin-(RR = 0.30; 95% CI, 0.19-0.49) or chlorhexidine-coated (RR = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.04-8.55) PICCs showed an association with reduced risk of CLABSI. In the adult population, antimicrobial PICCs had a nonsignificant association with lower CLABSI risk (RR = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.20-1.22).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that antimicrobial PICCs had a nonsignificant association with lower CLABSI risk compared with noncoated PICCs. Minocycline-rifampin-or chlorhexidine-coated PICCs showed an association with reduced risk of CLABSI.

Feasibility of Ultrasound-Guided, Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Placement at the Bedside in a Communicable-Disease Isolation Unit

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have investigated the safety of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, it remains uncertain whether PICC placement can be successfully carried out in settings with limited resources and a challenging environment for procedures, such as communicable-disease isolation units (CDIUs).

METHODS

This study investigated the safety of PICCs in patients admitted to CDIUs. These researchers used a handheld portable ultrasound device (PUD) to guide venous access and confirmed catheter-tip location with electrocardiography (ECG) or portable chest radiography.

RESULTS

Among 74 patients, the basilic vein and the right arm were the most common access site and location, respectively. The incidence of malposition was significantly higher with chest radiography compared to ECG (52.4% vs. 2.0%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Using a handheld PUD to place PICCs at the bedside and confirming the tip location with ECG is a feasible option for CDIU patients.

Vascular access in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a scoping review protocol

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this scoping review is to examine the extent of vascular access research undertaken on the critically ill COVID-19 population.

INTRODUCTION

Two fundamental supportive invasive interventions in the critical care environment are mechanical ventilation and intravenous therapy. Ventilation research has dominated the literature since the pandemic began; however, there has been little research on vascular access devices, despite these interventions existing almost codependently. The systematic proning of this cohort of patients increases the risk of dressing infiltration and infection. Vascular access devices, and the coagulopathic manifestations of COVID-19, place these patients at heightened risk of complications. Vascular access device insertion, care, and maintenance in the critically ill COVID-19 population must be understood to investigate whether this population is at increased risk of vascular access device complications and vessel health compromise.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

All study designs will be eligible for inclusion in this review. The intensive care unit will be the main focus of the review. Results will be limited to adults with disease progression severe enough to require admission to critical care.

METHODS

A search of Embase, MEDLINE (Ovid), Web of Science, and PubMed will be conducted. Clinical trial data will also be sought. As recommended by JBI, a 3-step search process will be followed. Data will be extracted using a data extraction instrument based on a template from JBI. The review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and the results will be presented in a PRISMA flow diagram. Publication dates will be filtered from 2019 to the present; only English-language results will be included.

Daily point-of-care ultrasound-assessment of central venous catheter-related thrombosis in critically ill patients: a prospective multicenter study

PURPOSE

Central venous catheter (CVC)-related thrombosis (CRT) is a known complication in critically ill patients. However, its clinical significance remains unclear. The objective of the study was to evaluate the occurrence and evolution of CRT from CVC insertion to removal.

METHODS

A prospective multicenter study was conducted in 28 intensive care units (ICUs). Duplex ultrasound was performed daily from CVC insertion until at least 3 days after CVC removal or before patient discharge from the ICU to detect CRT and to follow its progression. CRT diameter and length were measured and diameter > 7 mm was considered extensive.

RESULTS

The study included 1262 patients. The incidence of CRT was 16.9% (95% confidence interval 14.8-18.9%). CRT was most commonly found in the internal jugular vein. The median time from CVC insertion to CRT onset was 4 (2-7) days, and 12% of CRTs occurred on the first day and 82% within 7 days of CVC insertion. CRT diameters > 5 mm and > 7 mm were found in 48% and 30% of thromboses. Over a 7-day follow-up, CRT diameter remained stable when the CVC was in place, whereas it gradually decreased after CVC removal. The ICU length of stay was longer in patients with CRT than in those without CRT, and the mortality was not different.

CONCLUSION

CRT is a frequent complication. It can occur as soon as the CVC is placed and mostly during the first week following catheterization. Half of the thromboses are small but one-third are extensive. They are often non-progressive and may be resolved after CVC removal.

Development and validation of a multivariable model predicting the required catheter dwell time among mechanically ventilated critically ill patients in three randomized trials

BACKGROUND

The anatomic site for central venous catheter insertion influences the risk of central venous catheter-related intravascular complications. We developed and validated a predictive score of required catheter dwell time to identify critically ill patients at higher risk of intravascular complications.

METHODS

We retrospectively conducted a cohort study from three multicenter randomized controlled trials enrolling consecutive patients requiring central venous catheterization. The primary outcome was the required catheter dwell time, defined as the period between the first catheter insertion and removal of the last catheter for absence of utility. Predictors were identified in the training cohort (3SITES trial; 2336 patients) through multivariable analyses based on the subdistribution hazard function accounting for death as a competing event. Internal validation was performed in the training cohort by 500 bootstraps to derive the CVC-IN score from robust risk factors. External validation of the CVC-IN score were performed in the testing cohort (CLEAN, and DRESSING2; 2371 patients).

RESULTS

The analysis was restricted to patients requiring mechanical ventilation to comply with model assumptions. Immunosuppression (2 points), high creatinine > 100 micromol/L (2 points), use of vasopressor (1 point), obesity (1 point) and older age (40-59, 1 point; ≥ 60, 2 points) were independently associated with the required catheter dwell time. At day 28, area under the ROC curve for the CVC-IN score was 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.66-0.72] in the training cohort and 0.64, 95% CI [0.61-0.66] in the testing cohort. Patients with a CVC-IN score ≥ 4 in the overall cohort had a median required catheter dwell time of 24 days (versus 11 days for CVC-IN score < 4 points). The positive predictive value of a CVC-IN score ≥ 4 was 76.9% for > 7 days required catheter dwell time in the testing cohort.

CONCLUSION

The CVC-IN score, which can be used for the first catheter, had a modest ability to discriminate required catheter dwell time. Nevertheless, preference of the subclavian site may contribute to limit the risk of intravascular complications, in particular among ventilated patients with high CVC-IN score. Trials Registration NCT01479153, NCT01629550, NCT01189682.

AI-Enabled, Ultrasound-Guided Handheld Robotic Device for Femoral Vascular Access

Hemorrhage is a leading cause of trauma death, particularly in prehospital environments when evacuation is delayed. Obtaining central vascular access to a deep artery or vein is important for administration of emergency drugs and analgesics, and rapid replacement of blood volume, as well as invasive sensing and emerging life-saving interventions. However, central access is normally performed by highly experienced critical care physicians in a hospital setting. We developed a handheld AI-enabled interventional device, AI-GUIDE (Artificial Intelligence Guided Ultrasound Interventional Device), capable of directing users with no ultrasound or interventional expertise to catheterize a deep blood vessel, with an initial focus on the femoral vein. AI-GUIDE integrates with widely available commercial portable ultrasound systems and guides a user in ultrasound probe localization, venous puncture-point localization, and needle insertion. The system performs vascular puncture robotically and incorporates a preloaded guidewire to facilitate the Seldinger technique of catheter insertion. Results from tissue-mimicking phantom and porcine studies under normotensive and hypotensive conditions provide evidence of the technique's robustness, with key performance metrics in a live porcine model including: a mean time to acquire femoral vein insertion point of 53 ± 36 s (5 users with varying experience, in 20 trials), a total time to insert catheter of 80 ± 30 s (1 user, in 6 trials), and a mean number of 1.1 (normotensive, 39 trials) and 1.3 (hypotensive, 55 trials) needle insertion attempts (1 user). These performance metrics in a porcine model are consistent with those for experienced medical providers performing central vascular access on humans in a hospital.

Do antimicrobial and antithrombogenic peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) materials prevent catheter complications? An analysis of 42,562 hospitalized medical patients

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effectiveness of antimicrobial and antithrombogenic materials incorporated into peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) to prevent bloodstream infection, thrombosis, and catheter occlusion.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study involving 52 hospitals participating in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium. Sample included adult hospitalized medical patients who received a PICC between January 2013 and October 2019. Coated and impregnated catheters were identified by name, brand, and device marketing or regulatory materials. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models with robust sandwich standard error estimates accounting for the clustered nature of data were used to identify factors associated with PICC complications in coated versus noncoated devices across general care, intensive care unit (ICU), and oncology patients. Results were expressed as hazard ratios (HRs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Of 42,562 patients with a PICC, 39,806 (93.5%) were plain polyurethane, 2,263 (5.3%) incorporated antimicrobial materials, and 921 (2.2%) incorporated antithrombogenic materials. Most were inserted in general ward settings (n = 28,111, 66.0%), with 12, 078 (28.4%) and 1,407 (3.3%) placed in ICU and oncological settings, respectively. Within the entire cohort, 540 (1.3%) developed thrombosis, 745 (1.8%) developed bloodstream infection, and 4,090 (9.6%) developed catheter occlusion. Adjusting for known risk factors, antimicrobial PICCs were not associated with infection reduction (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.82-1.64), and antithrombogenic PICCs were not associated with reduction in thrombosis and occlusion (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.92-1.44). Results were consistent across populations and care settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Antimicrobial and antithrombogenic PICCs were not associated with a reduction in major catheter complications. Guidance aimed at informing use of these devices, balancing benefits against cost, appear necessary.

To PICC or not to PICC? A cross-sectional survey of vascular access practices in the ICU

PURPOSE

Vascular access patterns in the intensive care unit (ICU) have shifted from non-tunneled central venous catheters (CVCs) towards peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). We evaluated perceptions of critical care practitioners regarding these devices and variation in evidence-based practice.

MATERIALS

A 35-question survey on ICU vascular access was deployed in 13 Michigan hospitals. Descriptive statistics summarized responses. Differences in utilization, perceptions and evidence-based practices between PICCs and CVCs, by participant and site-level characteristics, were assessed.

RESULTS

314 of 621 eligible providers responded to the survey (response rate 51%). 15% of providers reported not routinely using ultrasound when placing CVCs. Respondents whom were trainees, from larger hospitals, and from closed ICUs were more likely to use ultrasound (p < 0.001). Additionally, 21% of respondents stated they did not specify number of CVC lumens, while 46% did not specify number of PICC lumens (p < 0.001). The likelihood of specifying PICC lumens increased when vascular access protocols were in place (p = 0.001). 2/3 of respondents (n = 173, 66%) stated more research on ICU vascular access was needed.

CONCLUSION

Variation in guideline-based vascular access practices exists in the ICU. Defined local protocols may improve guideline adherence. Studies evaluating vascular access decisions and patient safety in the ICU appear necessary.

Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Thrombosis After Placement via Electrocardiography vs Traditional Methods

BACKGROUND

Peripherally inserted central catheter tip placement at the cavoatrial junction is associated with reduced catheter-related deep vein thrombosis. Electrocardiographic tip confirmation purportedly improves accuracy of tip placement, but whether this approach can reduce deep vein thrombosis is unknown.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data from patients that received peripherally inserted central catheters at 52 Michigan hospitals were analyzed. The method used to confirm tip confirmation at insertion and deep vein thrombosis outcomes were extracted from medical records. Multivariate models (accounting for the clustered nature of the data) were fitted to assess the association between peripherally inserted central catheter-related deep vein thrombosis and method of tip confirmation (electrocardiographic vs radiographic imaging).

RESULTS

A total of 42,687 peripherally inserted central catheters (21,098 radiology vs 21,589 electrocardiographic) were included. Patients receiving electrocardiographic-confirmed peripherally inserted central catheters had fewer comorbidities compared with those that underwent placement via radiology. Overall, deep vein thrombosis occurred in 594 (1.3%) of all peripherally inserted central catheters. Larger catheter size (odds radio [OR] 1.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.90 per unit increase in gauge), history of deep vein thrombosis, and cancer were associated with increased risk of deep vein thrombosis (OR 2.00; 95% CI, 1.65-2.43 and OR 1.62; 95% CI, 1.16-2.26, respectively) using logistic regression. Following adjustment, electrocardiographic guidance was associated with a significant reduction in peripherally inserted central catheter-related deep vein thrombosis compared with radiographic imaging (OR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58-0.93; P = .0098).

CONCLUSION

The use of electrocardiography to confirm peripherally inserted central catheter tip placement at the cavoatrial junction was associated with significantly fewer deep vein thrombosis events than radiographic imaging. Use of this approach for peripherally inserted central catheter insertion may help improve patient safety, particularly in high-risk patients.

What is new in catheter use and catheter infection prevention in the ICU

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Short-term intravascular catheters are instrumental in the care of critically ill patients. Despite their benefits, they also are potential entries for systemic infections. There is a growing body of literature on catheter use and the prevention of intravascular catheter infections in intensive care. This review highlights major recent contributions to the topic and put them into perspective to recommendations on best practice procedures.

RECENT FINDINGS

Many studies published in the last years have evaluated prevention strategies applying technology and addressing behavior change. Skin disinfection with 2% alcoholic chlorhexidine-gluconate (CHG) and CHG-impregnated dressings are increasingly used in clinical practice. However, the role of universal CHG bathing remains controversial. A number of new and innovative technologies are in development. Recent qualitative research offers new perspectives about behavior change interventions to improve implementation.

SUMMARY

Many options for effective intravascular catheter infection prevention are currently available. A number of recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses not only confirmed measures targeting best practice and technology at catheter insertion and catheter care but also challenged interventions, such as CHG bathing. More focus should be put to implementation strategies.

Peripherally inserted central catheter placement in a multidisciplinary intensive care unit: A preliminary study demonstrating safety and procedural time in critically ill subjects

OBJECTIVE

Peripherally inserted central catheters are a popular means of obtaining central venous access in critically ill patients. However, there is limited data regarding the rapidity of the peripherally inserted central catheter procedure in the presence of acute illness or obesity, both of which may impede central venous catheter placement. We aimed to determine the feasibility, safety, and duration of peripherally inserted central catheter placement in critically ill patients, including obese patients and patients in shock.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was performed using data on 55 peripherally inserted central catheters placed in a 30-bed multidisciplinary intensive care unit in Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona. Information on the time required to complete each step of the peripherally inserted central catheter procedure, associated complications, and patient characteristics was obtained from a prospectively assembled internal quality assurance database created through random convenience sampling.

RESULTS

The Median Procedure Time, beginning with the first needle puncture and ending when the procedure is complete, was 14 (interquartile range: 9-20) min. Neither critical illness nor obesity resulted in a statistically significant increase in the time required to complete the peripherally inserted central catheter procedure. Three (5.5%) minor complications were observed.

CONCLUSION

Critical illness and obesity do not delay the acquisition of vascular access when placing a peripherally inserted central catheter. Concerns of delayed vascular access in critically ill patients should not deter a physician from selecting a peripherally inserted central catheter to provide vascular access when it would otherwise be appropriate.

The right methodology for long-term vascular access research: Three burning questions

Over the last 20 years, there has been a great proliferation of studies of different aspects of the long-term vascular access field. Despite the availability of such studies, methodological pitfalls surrounding long-term vascular access research are rarely mentioned. Methodological issues inherent to retrospective analyses make them very poor tools for providing generalizable results, as they often become estimates of local experiences rather than reflections of up-to-date practices. Second, despite being an often-ignored element when designing studies on catheter-related complications, a proper follow-up time definition and its length are crucial to limiting the impact of attrition bias on research results. Finally, meta-analyses constitute a powerful tool in modern evidence-based era, but several pitfalls can affect overall results. When designing a systematic review and meta-analytic process, study selection should always reflect the relevance of clinical questions and the capability to contextualize results in the modern and evidence-based vascular access era.

Use of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters in Patients With Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease: A Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Existing guidelines, including Choosing Wisely recommendations, endorse avoiding placement of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).

OBJECTIVE

To describe the frequency of and characteristics associated with PICC use in hospitalized patients with stage 3b or greater CKD (glomerular filtration rate [GFR] <45 mL/min/1.73 m2).

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

52 hospitals participating in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium.

PARTICIPANTS

Hospitalized medical patients who received a PICC between November 2013 and September 2016.

MEASUREMENTS

Percentage of patients receiving PICCs who had CKD, frequency of PICC-related complications, and variation in the proportion of PICCs placed in patients with CKD.

RESULTS

Of 20 545 patients who had PICCs placed, 4743 (23.1% [95% CI, 20.9% to 25.3%]) had an estimated GFR (eGFR) less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 and 699 (3.4%) were receiving hemodialysis. In the intensive care unit (ICU), 30.9% (CI, 29.7% to 32.2%) of patients receiving PICCs had an eGFR less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m2; the corresponding percentage in wards was 19.3% (CI, 18.8% to 19.9%). Among patients with an eGFR less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m2, multilumen PICCs were placed more frequently than single-lumen PICCs. In wards, PICC-related complications occurred in 15.3% of patients with an eGFR less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 and in 15.2% of those with an eGFR of 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 or higher. The corresponding percentages in ICU settings were 22.4% and 23.9%. In patients with an eGFR less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m2, PICC placement varied widely across hospitals (interquartile range, 23.7% to 37.8% in ICUs and 12.8% to 23.7% in wards).

LIMITATION

Nephrologist approval for placement could not be determined, and 2.7% of eGFR values were unknown and excluded.

CONCLUSION

In this sample of hospitalized patients who received PICCs, placement in those with CKD was common and not concordant with clinical guidelines.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network.