Triple-lumen peripherally inserted central catheter in patients in the critical care unit: prospective evaluation

Clinical experience with a chlorhexidine-coated PICC: A prospective, multicenter, observational study

INTRODUCTION

This study evaluated a chlorhexidine-coated peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) and the incidence of associated complications within both inpatient and outpatient populations.

METHODS

This IRB-approved, multicenter, prospective observational study was performed at three large teaching hospitals in the US. All adults who required a PICC for ⩾14 days were considered. Patients were monitored throughout entire catheter dwell. Duplex venous ultrasounds were performed before insertion, after 10 to 14 days of dwell time, and upon removal. Data was collected from the hospital, outpatient clinic, and patient PICC diary records.

RESULTS

A total of 103 patients, 56% male, with mean BMI 29 ± 8.8, were enrolled. The majority (79%) of patients were from high-risk groups-cancer, infectious diseases, transplant, and trauma. Primary treatment indications were antibiotics (66.99%) and chemotherapy (25.24%). Double lumen PICCs (59.2%) were favored clinically, as was basilic vein placement (71.84%). Mean catheter dwell was 47.01 ± 25.82 days. Three (3, 2.9%) central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) were reported. Four patients (4.6%) reported symptomatic catheter-related thrombosis (CRT), confirmed with ultrasound. Three patients (3.4%) had ultrasound-confirmed fibroblastic sleeve (FS). Eight patients (9.2%) who entered the study with pre-existing superficial thrombosis, had complete resolution at the time of catheter removal. The incidence of CLABSI was 0.82/1000 days. The combined CRT and FS rate was 6.9%.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the observational findings of this study, chlorhexidine-coated PICC technology may be considered for use in patient populations who are at moderate to high-risk for catheter-related complications in both inpatient and outpatient settings.

Effects of Peripherally inserted Central Catheter (PICC) materials and designs on reduction of PICC-related complications: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Studies showed that integrating coating or valve into Peripherally Inserted Central (PICC) can prevent related complications. However, data regarding efficiency were controversial. Therefore, a systematic review was needed to analyse the effect of PICC materials and designs on reduction of PICC-related complications. We searched PubMed, Cochrane library, EMbase, grey literature and referent literature from inception to 5 August 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and case-control study were included. Two authors extracted data independently, using a predesigned Excel form, and assessed the quality of included RCTs according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews (V5.1.0), case-control study was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were analysed using Review Manager (v5.3.0). A total of 10 RCTs and one case-control study were included. Meta-analysis results showed that PICC designs reduce the incidence of obstruction, and at the critical value of PICC-associated bloodstream infection, but may have no effects on other complications. Based on the literature reviewed, we can only say PICC new materials did not reflect significant reduction on complications, what's more, the result needs more multicentre, large RCTs to support. We suggested clinicians combine descriptive research and cost-effect analysis to select appropriate PICC materials and designs for patients.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Central Venous Access Device and Site Selection

The use of central venous access devices is ubiquitous in both inpatient and outpatient settings, whether for critical care, oncology, hemodialysis, parenteral nutrition, or diagnostic purposes. Radiology has a well-established role in the placement of these devices due to demonstrated benefits of radiologic placement in multiple clinical settings. A wide variety of devices are available for central venous access and optimal device selection is a common clinical challenge. Central venous access devices may be nontunneled, tunneled, or implantable. They may be centrally or peripherally inserted by way of veins in the neck, extremities, or elsewhere. Each device and access site presents specific risks that should be considered in each clinical scenario to minimize the risk of harm. The risk of infection and mechanical injury should be minimized in all patients. In hemodialysis patients, preservation of future access is an additional important consideration. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances in which peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

Symptomatic Deep Vein Thrombosis Associated With Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters of Different Diameters: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

We assessed the relationship between peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) diameters and symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT) rates. We conducted a systematic search for articles published between 2010 and 2021 reporting DVT incidence by catheter diameter in patients who had a PICC, followed by meta-analyses for DVT risk in each diameter group. Pooled DVT rates were incorporated into an economic model. Of 1627 abstracts screened, 47 studies were included. The primary meta-analysis of 40 studies demonstrated the incidence of DVT was 0.89%, 3.26%, 5.46%, and 10.66% for 3, 4, 5, and 6 French (Fr) PICCs (P  =  .01 between 4 and 5 Fr). Rates of DVT were not significantly different between oncology and nononcology patients (P  =  .065 for 4 Fr and P  =  .99 for 5 Fr). The DVT rate was 5.08% for ICU patients and 4.58% for non-ICU patients (P  =  .65). The economic model demonstrated an annual, incremental cost savings of US$114 053 for every 5% absolute reduction in 6 Fr PICCs use. Using the smallest PICC that meets the patients' clinical needs may help to mitigate risks and confer savings.

The incidence and risk of venous thromboembolism associated with peripherally inserted central venous catheters in hospitalized patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) can be fatal if not treated promptly, and individual studies have reported wide variability in rates of VTE associated with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC). We thus conducted this meta-analysis to investigate the overall incidence and risk of developing PICC-related VTE in hospitalized patients.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases from inception until January 26, 2022. In studies with a non-comparison arm, the pooled incidence of PICC-related VTE was calculated. The pooled odds ratio (OR) was calculated to assess the risk of VTE in the studies that compared PICC to the central venous catheter (CVC). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess methodological quality.

Results

A total of 75 articles (58 without a comparison arm and 17 with), including 109292 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. The overall pooled incidence of symptomatic VTE was 3.7% (95% CI: 3.1–4.4) in non-comparative studies. In the subgroup meta-analysis, the incidence of VTE was highest in patients who were in a critical care setting (10.6%; 95% CI: 5.0–17.7). Meta-analysis of comparative studies revealed that PICC was associated with a statistically significant increase in the odds of VTE events compared with CVC (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.83–3.37; P < 0.01). However, in subgroup analysis stratified by the study design, there was no significant difference in VTE events between the PICC and CVC in randomized controlled trials (OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 0.77–6.74; P = 0.13).

Conclusion

Best practice standards such as PICC tip verification and VTE prophylaxis can help reduce the incidence and risk of PICC-related VTE. The risk-benefit of inserting PICC should be carefully weighed, especially in critically ill patients. Cautious interpretation of our results is important owing to substantial heterogeneity among the studies included in this study.

Feasibility of the Ultrasound-Guided Insertion of the Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC) by the Vascular Surgeon at the Bedside in the Trauma Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND

This study analyzed the outcomes of the ultrasound-guided insertion of the peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC) by experienced vascular surgeons at the bedside of the trauma intensive care unit (ICU) and compared the outcomes with those of fluoroscopy-guided PICC performed by radiologists in the interventional suite.

METHODS

Between May 1, 2016, and April 30, 2021, 97 patients who were hospitalized in the trauma ICU and underwent PICC insertion were enrolled in the study. Forty-two out of the 97 patients underwent PICC insertion by interventional radiologists in the interventional radiology suite under fluoroscopy guidance, while the remaining 55 cases underwent ultrasound-guided PICC insertion by the vascular surgeon at the trauma ICU bedside.

RESULTS

The technical failure (P = 0.504) and malposition (P = 0.127) rates were not significantly different between the 2 groups. However, it took significantly less time for the vascular surgeon to complete the PICC insertion procedure (P < 0.001). Significantly more patients of the ultrasound-guided group required inotropes (P = 0.012) and mechanical ventilation (P = 0.003) at the time of the procedure. In addition, the ultrasound-guided group appeared to be in critical condition in terms of kidney function according to laboratory data (P = 0.014). Meanwhile, the ultrasound-guided group maintained the central line catheter for a shorter time (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In trauma patients, ultrasound-guided PICC insertion at the bedside by experienced vascular surgeons at the trauma ICU was feasible compared to fluoroscopy-guided insertion performed by interventional radiologists.

Catheter-related thrombosis after cardiac surgery in patients with both central venous and pulmonary artery catheters inserted into the right internal jugular vein: a single-center, prospective, observational study

Central venous catheters (CVCs) and pulmonary artery catheters (PACs) are widely used in intensive care and perioperative management. The detection and prevention of catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) are important because CRT is a complication of catheter use and can cause pulmonary embolism and bloodstream infection. Currently, there is no evidence for CRT in patients using both CVC and PAC. We conducted a single-center, prospective, observational study to identify the incidence, timing, and risk factors for CRT in patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery and using a combination of CVC and PAC through the right internal jugular vein (RIJV). Out of 50 patients, CRT was observed using ultrasonography in 39 patients (78%), and the median time of CRT formation was 1 day (interquartile range: 1-1.5) after catheter insertion. The mean duration of PAC placement was 3 days (interquartile range: 2-5), and the maximum diameter of CRT was 12 mm (interquartile range: 10-15). In short-axis images, CRT occupied more than half of the cross-sectional area of the RIJV in five patients (10%), and CRT completely occluded the RIJV in one patient (2%). Platelet count, duration of PAC placement, and intraoperative bleeding amount were found to be high-risk indicators of CRT. In conclusion, patients who underwent cardiovascular surgery and using both CVC and PAC had a high incidence of CRT. Avoiding unnecessary PAC placement and early removal of catheters in patients at high risk of developing CRT may prevent the development of CRT.

A model to assess the risk of peripherally inserted central venous catheter-related thrombosis in patients with breast cancer: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Limited risk assessment tool to stratify the risk of PICC-related thrombosis (PICC-RVT) in breast cancer patients. This study developed a model to assess the risk of PICC-RVT in breast cancer patients.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 1284 breast cancer patients receiving PICC insertion from January 1, 2015, to August 31, 2019, at a cancer specialized hospital in Hunan province, China. The entire population was divided into two groups at a ratio of 3:1 which included a derivation sample (n = 978), and a validation sample (n = 284). PICC-RVT was confirmed by ultrasonography in the presence of clinical symptoms and signs.

RESULTS

PICC-RVT occurred in 40 (4.09%) of the derivation sample patients. Multivariable analysis identified 9 variables: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, prior central venous catheter placement, higher level of platelets, higher level of D-dimer, lower level of activated partial thromboplastin time, menopause, no prior breast surgery, upper extremity lymphedema, and endocrine therapy. Points were assigned to each variable according to regression coefficient. The model had an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) of 0.850 (95% CI 0.776 to 0.924), The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit was 5.780 (p = 0.328). At a cutoff value of 3.5, the sensitivity and specificity were 75% and 83%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Several disease-specific factors of breast cancer (e.g., menopause, endocrine therapy, and upper extremity lymphedema) play important roles in the development of PICC-RVT. Patients at higher PICC-RVT risk could be candidates for close post-insertion monitoring and interventions to prevent PICC-RVT.

The effect of systemic and local risk factors on triggering peripherally inserted central catheter-related thrombosis in cancer patients: A prospective cohort study based on ultrasound examination and structural equation modeling

BACKGROUND

The negative synergistic effect of cancer and a peripherally inserted central catheter could significantly increase the incidence of thrombosis. Rather than identifying risk factors for peripherally inserted central catheter-related thrombosis, exploring the effect of these risk factors might be a promising method to improve the outcomes of thrombosis.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the effect of systemic and local risk factors on triggering peripherally inserted central catheter-related thrombosis in the first two weeks post-insertion in cancer patients.

DESIGN

A prospective cohort study.

SETTING

The study was conducted at a 4500-bed university-affiliated medical center in China.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred seventy-three cancer patients with peripherally inserted central catheters were included.

METHODS

Peripherally inserted central catheter-related thrombosis was assessed using ultrasound at a series of timepoints, once every two days post-insertion. Data on age, body mass index, blood hypercoagulation, insertion attempts, catheter-to-vein ratio, and blood flow velocity were collected as risk factors. Descriptive statistics and structural equation modeling were used to describe the study samples and analyze the effects of systemic and local risk factors.

RESULTS

Among the 173 cancer patients included, 126 (72.8%) patients were diagnosed with peripherally inserted central catheter-related thrombosis. Most thromboses (n = 118, 93.7%) were detected within five days, and 100% were detected within nine days post-insertion. Structural equation modeling analysis showed that local risk factors [catheter-to-vein ratio (standardized path coefficient = 0.32, p < 0.05) and blood flow velocity (standardized path coefficient = -0.35, p < 0.05)] had a greater effect than systemic factors [age (standardized path coefficient = 0.13, p < 0.05) and blood hypercoagulation (standardized path coefficient = 0.17, p < 0.05)] on triggering peripherally inserted central catheter-related thrombosis.

CONCLUSION

Peripherally inserted central catheter-related thrombosis is quite common and can occur very early post-insertion in cancer patients. Among the common risk factors, local risk factors reflecting peripherally inserted central catheter technology itself had a greater effect than systemic risk factors reflecting predisposition to thrombosis. Clinical Registration: Clinical Trials ChiCTR1900024890.

Reverse tapered versus non-tapered peripherally inserted central catheters: A narrative review

Introduced over 20 years ago, the reverse tapering design for PICC catheters is supposed to have some benefits in terms of both efficacy and safety. In particular, it would ensure less postoperative bleeding at the exit site and greater effectiveness in preventing kinking or twisting of the same. Since its introduction, these hypothesized advantages have never been demonstrated in clinical studies, however very scarce, which have highlighted neither advantages nor disadvantages of reverse tapered catheters when compared to non-reverse tapered ones. This narrative review analyzes some aspects of the use of reverse tapered PICCs, also paying attention to some possible undesirable effects that have arisen from the introduction into clinical practice of new subcutaneous systems of securement of PICCs to the skin. Clinicians should be aware of the fact that reverse tapering design does not represents a sure improvement in terms of safety and efficacy of PICCs and its adoption should be weighed against possible clinical disadvantages.

The incidence of asymptomatic thrombosis related to peripherally inserted central catheter in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis People's

Aim

To examine the incidence and risk factors for asymptomatic peripherally inserted central catheter‐related thrombosis (PICC‐RT).

Design

We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis following the PRISMA guidelines.

Methods

The review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020186732). A systematic search of EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane was performed from inception to 4 June 2020. Meta‐analysis was performed to determine the pooled incidence of asymptomatic PICC‐RT.

Results

Ten studies comprising 1591 participants with 1592 PICCs were included in this meta‐analysis. The pooled incidence of asymptomatic PICC‐RT in adults was 22% (95% CI, 0.17–0.29). The pooled incidence of PICC‐RT in cancer patients was 19% (95% CI, 0.13–0.26). Asymptomatic PICC‐RT mainly occurred in superficial veins. Most asymptomatic thrombosis occurred 3–12 days after the PICC insertion. A higher Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score (ECOG), slower blood flow velocity and left basilic vein were independent risk factors of asymptomatic thrombosis.

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.

A Randomized Trial of Complications of Peripherally and Centrally Inserted Central Lines in the Neuro-Intensive Care Unit: Results of the NSPVC Trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the relative number of complications from peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) and centrally inserted central venous catheters (CVC) in the neuroscience intensive care unit (NSICU).

METHODS

This study was carried out in a 32-bed NSICU in a large academic hospital in the USA from July 2015 until January 2017. Patients admitted requiring central venous access were randomly assigned to have a PICC or CVC inserted. Complications were recorded and compared. The primary outcome was all complications as well as combined numbers of large vein thrombosis, central-line-associated blood stream infections, and insertional trauma. Outcomes were compared using the Fisher's exact test, logistic regression, or unpaired T tests, as appropriate.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-two patients were enrolled; 72 were randomized to the PICC arm and 80 to the CVC arm. There were no crossovers, withdrawals, nor losses to follow-up. The study was stopped at the second pre-planned interim analysis for futility. The combined number of large vein thrombosis, central-line-associated blood stream infection, and insertional trauma was 4/72 in the PICC arm and 1/80 in the CVC group (OR 4.6 (95% CI 0.5-42.6) p = 0.14). The number of all complications in the PICC arm was 14/72 compared to 10/80 in the CVC arm (OR 1.7 (95% CI 0.7-4.1) p = 0.24).

CONCLUSIONS

PICCs and CVCs have similar numbers of complications when placed in patients admitted to the NSICU.

Sequential Pneumatic Compression in the Arm in Neurocritical Patients with a Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheter: A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) are increasingly used for parenteral access in critically ill hospitalized patients, but they increase the incidence of upper extremity deep venous thrombosis (UE DVT). Sequential compression devices (SCDs) applied to the legs effectively reduce lower extremity DVT, but have not been tested in the arms. Our objective was to determine whether SCDs applied to the arm may reduce the risk of PICC-associated UE DVT.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of randomized, single-center, controlled clinical trial on patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit with critical neurological illness who had a PICC and were not receiving anticoagulants. Between January 2014 and October 2016, patients were randomized 1:1 to an intervention group having a custom SCD applied to the arm harboring the PICC or to a control group. The primary endpoint was ultrasound-detected UE DVT.

RESULTS

Following randomization of 77 subjects, the study was terminated due to excess DVT in the treatment arm. UE DVT was detected in 18 subjects (29.0%), and it was more frequent among those in the SCD group (13/31 [41.9%] vs. the control group 5/31 [16.1%]; p = 0.049). After accounting for crossovers, the difference was still significant (12/28 [43.0%] vs. 6/34 [17.6%]; p = 0.048). Yet, symptomatic UE DVT (n = 3) and pulmonary embolism without evidence of lower extremity DVT (n = 2) were only observed in patients who were not wearing the SCD on the arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Although UE DVT is commonly associated with PICC use, the results of this trial do not support the use of SCD on the arm for DVT prevention. Further research on this strategy may nonetheless be justified.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT01670188.

Randomized multicenter study on long-term complications of peripherally inserted central catheters positioned by electrocardiographic technique

BACKGROUND

The intracavitary electrocardiogram (IC-ECG) method has been used for the tip location of central venous access devices for the advantage of being safe, accurate and highly cost effective. However, long-term follow-up is rare. This randomized clinical trial aimed to evaluate the long-term complications of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) positioned by the IC-ECG method.

METHODS

We randomized 2250 patients who needed PICC placement to either a landmark length estimation supplemented by IC-ECG positioned group (ECG group) or the traditional landmark length estimation alone group (control group) in a 2:1 allocation. Post-procedural chest X-rays were applied to confirm tip position. Follow-up was performed monthly to six months. Standard statistics analyses were performed with the SAS 9.13 software, and p < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

As evaluated by post-procedural chest X-ray, tip location in the ECG group had a first-attempt success (catheter tip located at optimal position) of 91.7% (95% confidence interval (CI): 90.3%-93.1%), significantly higher than 78.9% (95% CI: 76.0%-81.9%) observed in the control group (p < 0.001). At six-month follow-up, in the control group, frequency of total complications was 9.5%, including the exit site infection (4.0%), phlebitis (1.3%), deep venous thrombosis (1.5%), liquid extravasation (2.9%) and mechanical failure (1.9%). The IC-ECG group had significantly lower rates of complications (6.4%, p < 0.001), including the exit site infection (2.7%, p > 0.05), phlebitis (1.1%, p > 0.05), deep venous thrombosis (1.2%, p > 0.05), liquid extravasation (2.4%, p > 0.05) and mechanical failure (1.2%, p > 0.05). In the univariable logistic regression analysis, ECG method, other diseases and upper arms were the independent protective factors, and the number of adjustment procedures (n ≥ 2) were the independent risk factors of the complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The intra-procedural tip location by IC-ECG is more safe and accurate than the traditional method of verifying tip location only post-procedurally, by chest X-ray.

Performance of a closed-loop glucose control system, comprising a continuous glucose monitoring system and an AI-based controller in swine during severe hypo- and hyperglycemic provocations

Intensive care unit (ICU) patients develop stress induced insulin resistance causing hyperglycemia, large glucose variability and hypoglycemia. These glucose metrics have all been associated with increased rates of morbidity and mortality. The only way to achieve safe glucose control at a lower glucose range (e.g., 4.4–6.6 mmol/L) will be through use of an autonomous closed loop glucose control system (artificial pancreas). Our goal with the present study was to assess the safety and performance of an artificial pancreas system, composed of the EIRUS (Maquet Critical Care AB) continuous glucose monitor (CGM) and novel artificial intelligence-based glucose control software, in a swine model using unannounced hypo- and hyperglycemia challenges. Fourteen piglets (6 control, 8 treated) underwent sequential unannounced hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic challenges with 3 IU of NovoRapid and a glucose infusion at 17 mg/kg/min over the course of 5 h. In the Control animals an experienced ICU physician used every 30-min blood glucose values to maintain control to a range of 4.4–9 mmol/L. In the Treated group the artificial pancreas system attempted to maintain blood glucose control to a range of 4.4–6.6 mmol/L. Five of six Control animals and none of eight Treated animals experienced severe hypoglycemia (< 2.22 mmol/L). The area under the curve 3.5 mmol/L was 28.9 (21.1–54.2) for Control and 4.8 (3.1–5.2) for the Treated animals. The total percent time within tight glucose control range, 4.4–6.6 mmol/L, was 32.8% (32.4–47.1) for Controls and 55.4% (52.9–59.4) for Treated (p < 0.034). Data are median and quartiles. The artificial pancreas system abolished severe hypoglycemia and outperformed the experienced ICU physician in avoiding clinically significant hypoglycemic excursions.

Complication and Failures of Central Vascular Access Device in Adult Critical Care Settings

OBJECTIVES

To examine the proportion and rate of central venous access device failure and complications across central venous access device types in adult intensive care.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search was undertaken in the electronic databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health in September 2017.

STUDY SELECTION

Included studies were of observational (prospective and retrospective) or interventional design and reported central venous access device failure and complications in adult ICU settings. Studies were excluded if they were published prior to November 2006 or not reported in English. Two reviewers independently screened articles, assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were extracted on the primary outcome, central venous access device failure, and secondary outcomes: central venous access device complications (central line-associated bloodstream infection, catheter-related bloodstream infection, catheter-related thrombosis, occlusion, catheter removal due to suspected infection, dislodgement, breakage, and local infection). Patient and device data and study details to assess the study quality were also extracted.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 63 studies involving 50,000 central venous access devices (396,951 catheter days) were included. Central venous access device failure was 5% (95% CI, 3-6%), with the highest rates and proportion of failure in hemodialysis catheters. Overall central line-associated bloodstream infection rate was 4.59 per 1,000 catheter days (95% CI, 2.31-6.86), with the highest rate in nontunneled central venous access devices. Removal of central venous access device due to suspected infection was high (17%; 20.4 per 1,000 catheter days; 95% CI, 15.7-25.2).

CONCLUSIONS

Central venous access device complications and device failure is a prevalent and significant problem in the adult ICU, leading to substantial patient harm and increased healthcare costs. The high proportion of central venous access devices removed due to suspicion of infection, despite low overall central line-associated bloodstream infection and catheter-related bloodstream infection rates, indicates a need for robust practice guidelines to inform decision-making surrounding removal of central venous access devices suspected of infection.

Vessel Health and Preservation: a model and clinical pathway for using vascular access devices

Use of intravenous devices for the delivery of medical treatment spans all healthcare facilities ranging from hospitals to clinics and home care. Clinical pathways are processes used by healthcare providers to integrate and illustrate the best evidence and approach to care for a specific area of practice. The Vessel Health and Preservation (VHP) model is a framework and pathway process, consisting of four quadrants, to guide initiation and management of treatment requiring intravenous access. The pathway is designed to promote preservation of the vasculature of patients from admission through discharge with a focus on acute care. This article describes the model and pathway process. Moving through the quadrants of assessment/selection, insertion, management and evaluation of outcomes the clinician receives vascular access education to establish an understanding of the key principles and is then better able to provide care to the patient. Research on the VHP model has found that patients, clinicians and healthcare facilities benefit from the evidence integrated within the VHP model for improved outcomes, greater success with insertion, time saved through improved efficiency, risk reduced through appropriate device discontinuation, and greater patient satisfaction.

Can Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters Be Safely Placed in Patients with Cancer Receiving Chemotherapy? A Retrospective Study of Almost 400,000 Catheter-Days

BACKGROUND

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are central venous catheters (CVCs) that are commonly used in onco-hematologic settings for chemotherapy administration. As there is insufficient evidence to recommend a specific CVC for chemotherapy administration, we aimed to ascertain PICC-related adverse events (AEs) and identify independent predictors of PICC removal in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Information on adult patients with cancer with a PICC inserted for chemotherapy administration between September 2007 and December 2014 was extracted from six hospital databases. The primary outcome was PICC removal due to PICC-related AEs (occlusion, infection, or symptomatic thrombosis). Independent predictors of PICC removal were identified using a multivariate Cox regression model.

RESULTS

Among the 2,477 included patients, 419 PICC-related AEs (16.9%; 1.09 AEs per 1,000 PICC-days) were reported. AEs increased when PICC was inserted at the brachial site (hazard ratio [HR], 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.84) and with open systems (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.24-2.88) and decreased in older men (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.49-0.81).

CONCLUSION

Use of PICC for chemotherapy administration was associated with a low all-AEs rate. The basilic vein was the safer site, and valved systems had fewer AEs than open systems. More research is needed to explore the interaction between AEs, sex, and age.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

These findings provide clinicians with evidence that peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are safe for chemotherapy administration. They also suggest that clinicians should limit the use of open systems when long chemotherapy regimens are scheduled. Moreover, alternatives to PICCs should be considered when administering chemotherapy to young men.

Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension following long-term peripherally inserted central venous catheter use

A 36-year-old woman presented with recurrent pulmonary emboli (PE) despite oral anticoagulation. She was a type I diabetic with severe gastroparesis requiring insertion of multiple long-term peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) over a 10-year period. Imaging at presentation demonstrated a PICC-associated mobile mass in the right atrium and signs of pulmonary hypertension (PH). She was thrombolyzed and fully anticoagulated, and diabetic management without PICC strongly recommended. PH persisted, however, and she developed chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH), for which successful pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA) surgery led to symptomatic and hemodynamic improvement. This was the first case of CTEPH reported related to long-term PICC use outside the setting of malignant disease, and a novel observation that the PEA specimen contained multiple plastic fragments. Long-term PICC placement increases the risk of CTEPH, a life-threatening, albeit treatable, complication.

Peripherally inserted central catheter–related thrombosis rate in modern vascular access era—when insertion technique matters: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:

Technical factors at the moment of catheter insertion might have a role in peripherally inserted central catheter–related thrombotic risk. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to define the actual rate of peripherally inserted central catheter–related symptomatic deep vein thrombosis in patients in whom catheter insertion was performed according to ultrasound guidance, appropriate catheter size choice, and proper verification of tip location.

Methods:

We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Only prospective observational studies published in peer-reviewed journals after 2010 up to November 2018 reporting peripherally inserted central catheter–related deep vein thrombosis rate were included. All studies were of adult patients who underwent peripherally inserted central catheter insertion. Results were restricted to those studies which included in their methods ultrasound guidance for venipuncture, catheter tip location, and a catheter size selection strategy. Random-effect meta-analyses and arcsine transformation for binomial data were performed to pool deep vein thrombosis weighted frequencies.

Results:

Of the 1441 studies identified, 15 studies involving 5420 patients and 5914 peripherally inserted central catheters fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The weighted frequency of peripherally inserted central catheter–related deep vein thrombosis was 2.4% (95% confidence interval = 1.5–3.3) and remained low in oncologic patients (2.2%, 95% confidence interval = 0.6–3.9). Thrombotic rate was higher in onco-hematologic patients (5.9%, 95% confidence interval = 1.2–10). Considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 74.9) was observed and all studies were considered at high risk of attrition bias.

Conclusions:

A proper technique is crucial at the moment of peripherally inserted central catheter insertion. Peripherally inserted central catheter–related deep vein thrombosis rate appears to be low when evidence-based technical factors are taken into consideration during the insertion procedure.

Evidence-Based Strategies and Recommendations for Preservation of Central Venous Access in Children

Children with chronic illness often require prolonged or repeated venous access. They remain at high risk for venous catheter-related complications (high-risk patients), which largely derive from elective decisions during catheter insertion and continuing care. These complications result in progressive loss of the venous capital (patent and compliant venous pathways) necessary for delivery of life-preserving therapies. A nonstandardized, episodic, isolated approach to venous care in these high-need, high-cost patients is too often the norm, imposing a disproportionate burden on affected persons and escalating costs. This state-of-the-art review identifies known failure points in the current systems of venous care, details the elements of an individualized plan of care, and emphasizes a patient-centered, multidisciplinary, collaborative, and evidence-based approach to care in these vulnerable populations. These guidelines are intended to enable every practitioner in every practice to deliver better care and better outcomes to these patients through awareness of critical issues, anticipatory attention to meaningful components of care, and appropriate consultation or referral when necessary.

Peripherally inserted central catheters in critically ill patients - complications and its prevention: A review

Peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) is extensively used in critical care settings, because it plays a vital role in providing safe central venous entry. However, PICC is associated with several complications, which should be detected to shorten the duration of patients' improvement, reduce health care cost, and lessen the incidence of various PICC-related complications. Therefore, this study aimed to outline current literature on PICC procedures, potential complications, and measures for prevention. Understanding evidence-based guidelines regarding insertion technique, early detection of complications, and care bundle of PICC is significant in complication prevention. Implementation of education, training, and appropriate multidisciplinary approaches on PICC care among nurses and caregivers is the key to preventing complications. Thus, the strict care of indwelling PICC lines, the targeted and reasonable PICC-associated complication prevention, and nursing care have a major clinical significance in reducing the occurrence of potential PICC complications.

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

OBJECTIVES

To quantify variation in use and complications from peripherally inserted central catheters placed in the ICU versus peripherally inserted central catheters placed on the general ward.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Fifty-two hospital Michigan quality collaborative.

PATIENTS

Twenty-seven-thousand two-hundred eighty-nine patients with peripherally inserted central catheters placed during hospitalization.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient, provider, and device characteristics. Bivariate tests were used to assess differences between peripherally inserted central catheters placed in the ICU versus peripherally inserted central catheters placed on the ward. Multilevel mixed-effects generalized linear models adjusting for patient and device factors with a logit link clustered by hospital were used to examine the association between peripherally inserted central catheter complications and location of peripherally inserted central catheter placement. Variation in ICU peripherally inserted central catheter use, rates of complications, and appropriateness of use across hospitals was also examined. Eight-thousand two-hundred eighty patients (30.3%) received peripherally inserted central catheters in the ICU versus 19,009 (69.7%) on the general ward. The commonest indication for peripherally inserted central catheter use in the ICU was difficult IV access (35.1%) versus antibiotic therapy (53.3%) on wards. Compared with peripherally inserted central catheters placed in wards, peripherally inserted central catheters placed in the ICU were more often multilumen (59.5% vs 39.3; p < 0.001) and more often associated with a complication (odds ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.18-1.43; p < 0.001). Substantial variation in ICU peripherally inserted central catheter use and outcomes across hospitals was observed, with median peripherally inserted central catheter dwell time ranging from 3 to 38.5 days (p < 0.001) and complications from 0% to 40.2% (p < 0.001). Importantly, 87% (n = 45) of ICUs reported median peripherally inserted central catheter dwell times less than or equal to 14 days, a duration where traditional central venous catheters, not peripherally inserted central catheters, are considered appropriate by published criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Peripherally inserted central catheter use in the ICU is highly variable, associated with complications and often not appropriate. Further study of vascular access decision-making in the ICU appears necessary.

Efficacy and safety of peripherally inserted central venous catheters in acute cardiac care management

PURPOSE

Patients admitted to cardiac intensive care unit need administration of drugs intravenously often in concomitance of therapeutic techniques such as non-invasive ventilation, continuous renal replacement therapy and intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation. Therefore, the insertion of central venous catheters provides a reliable access for delivering medications, laboratory testing and hemodynamic monitoring, but it is associated with the risk of important complications. In our study, we tested the efficacy and safety of peripherally inserted central catheters to manage cardiac intensive care.

METHODS

All patients admitted to cardiac intensive care unit with indication for elective central venous access were checked by venous arm ultrasound for peripherally inserted central catheter's implantation. Peripherally inserted central catheters were inserted by ultrasound-guided puncture. After 7 days from the catheter's placement and at the removal, vascular ultrasound examination was performed searching signs of upper extremity deep venous thrombosis. In case of sepsis, blood cultures peripherally from the catheter and direct culture of the tip of the catheter were done to establish a catheter-related blood stream infection.

RESULTS

In our cardiac intensive care unit, 137 peripherally inserted central catheters were placed: 80.3% of patients eligible for a peripherally inserted central catheter were implanted. The rate of symptomatic catheter-related peripheral venous thrombosis was 1.4%. Catheter-related blood stream infection was diagnosed in one patient (0.7%; 5.7 × 1000 peripherally inserted central catheter days). All peripherally inserted central catheters were inserted successfully without other major complications.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients admitted to cardiac intensive care unit, peripherally inserted central catheters' insertion was feasible in a high percentage of patients and was associated with low infective complications and clinical thrombosis rate.

The microbiological characteristics and risk factors for PICC-related bloodstream infections in intensive care unit

The study was aimed to investigate the pathogens distribution and risk factors for PICC-related bloodstream infection in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. 402 patients placed with PICC in ICU were recruited in the study. The microbiological characteristics of PICC-related infection were investigated by Vitek 2 Compact automated microbial system. Antibiotics sensitivity was performed with disk diffusion and minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) methods. Multivariate logistic and cox analyses were performed to identify the risk factors for PICC-related infection in ICU patients. 38 PICC-related infection cases were observed, and its morbidity was 9.45%. The morbidity was significantly higher in power PICC cases than that in common PICC cases. Gram-positive bacteria might be responsible for the major infection cases, followed by gram-negative bacteria, and fungi. Drug sensitivity analyses indicated that gram-negative bacteria showed low resistance to carbapenems antibiotics, and Cefperazone/sulbactam. The gram-positive bacterial exhibited sensitive to Teicoplanin and Vancomycin. The isolated fungi showed low resistance to the commonly used antifungal antibiotics. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that power PICC, high Charison scores, diabetes mellitus, double lumens triple lumens were risk factors for PICC-related infections among ICU patients. Power PICC, high Charison scores, diabetes mellitus, multi-lumens are risk factors for PICC-related bloodstream infection in ICU patients.

A Randomized Trial of Central Venous Catheter Type and Thrombosis in Critically Ill Neurologic Patients

BACKGROUND

Observational studies suggest peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) are associated with a high risk of catheter-related large vein thrombosis (CRLVT) in critically ill neurologic patients. We evaluated the difference in thrombosis risk between PICCs and centrally inserted central venous catheters (CICVCs).

METHODS

We conducted a pragmatic, randomized controlled trial of critically ill adult neurologic patients admitted to neurological and trauma critical care units at two level I trauma centers. Patients were randomized to receive either a PICC or CICVC and undergo active surveillance for CRLVT or death within 15 days of catheter placement.

RESULTS

In total, 39 subjects received a PICC and 41 received a CICVC between February 2012 and July 2015. The trial was stopped after enrollment of 80 subjects due to feasibility affected by slow enrollment and funding. In the primary intention-to-treat analysis, 17 (43.6 %) subjects that received a PICC compared to 9 (22.0 %) that received a CICVC experienced the composite of CRLVT or death, with a risk difference of 21.6 % (95 % CI 1.57-41.71 %). Adjusted common odds ratio of CRLVT/death was significantly higher among subjects randomized to receive a PICC (adjusted OR 3.08; 95 % CI 1.1-8.65). The higher adjusted odds ratio was driven by risk of CRLVT, which was higher in those randomized to PICC compared to CICVC (adjusted OR 4.66; 95 % CI 1.3-16.76) due to increased large vein thrombosis without a reduction in proximal deep venous thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our trial demonstrates that critically ill neurologic patients who require a central venous catheter have significantly lower odds of ultrasound-diagnosed CRLVT with placement of a CICVC as compared to a PICC.

Interventional Therapy for Upper Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis

Approximately 10% of all deep vein thromboses occur in the upper extremity, and that number is increasing due to the use of peripherally inserted central catheters. Sequelae of upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) are similar to those for lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (LEDVT) and include postthrombotic syndrome and pulmonary embolism. In addition to systemic anticoagulation, there are multiple interventional treatment options for UEDVT with the potential to reduce the incidence of these sequelae. To date, there have been no randomized trials to define the optimal management strategy for patients presenting with UEDVT, so many conclusions are drawn from smaller, single-center studies or from LEDVT research. In this article, the authors describe the evidence for the currently available treatment options and an approach to a patient with acute UEDVT.

Incidence and risk factors of superficial and deep vein thrombosis associated with peripherally inserted central catheters in children

Essentials Pediatric studies on peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-related thrombosis are scarce. This study analyzes incidence and risk factors for PICC-related venous thrombosis in children. PICC-related thrombosis is a common, and nearly always, asymptomatic complication. Echo-guided insertion and a catheter to vein ratio < 0.33 may notably decrease this complication.

SUMMARY

Background Upper-extremity venous thrombosis is associated with the use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). Few pediatric studies have focused on this issue. Objectives To determine the incidence and risk factors for PICC-related superficial vein thrombosis (SVT) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in children. Patients/methods An observational follow-up cohort study was conducted at a single hospital between June 2012 and June 2015. All patients receiving a PICC were enrolled and followed up, with weekly Doppler ultrasound examination of the catheterized limb until PICC removal. Patient, procedural and follow-up data were analyzed. Results In the study period, 265 PICCs were inserted (median age of patients 6.5 years, interquartile range [IQR] 2.4-13 years; median weight 20 kg, IQR 11-38 kg; 54% males; 67.9% chronically ill), and patients were followed up for a total of 9743 days. The median indwelling time was 21 days (IQR 12-37 days). During follow-up, 88 (33.2% of insertions) PICC-related thromboses (incidence rate [IR] 9.03 per 1000 catheter-days) were diagnosed, 66 (24.9%) as isolated SVT, seven (2.6%) as isolated DVT, and 15 (5.7%) as SVT with associated DVT (IR 6.78, 0.71 and 1.54 per 1000 catheter-days, respectively). Only 9.9% of patients with SVT and 18.2% of those with DVT were symptomatic. The main risk factors for PICC-related SVT and DVT were a catheter/vein ratio of > 0.33 and thrombosis of the catheterized superficial vein, respectively. Conclusions PICC-related thrombosis is a common and nearly always asymptomatic complication in children, the SVT rate being approximately three times higher than the DVT rate. Optimal vein and catheter selection, yielding the lowest possible catheter/vein ratio, may decrease the rate of PICC-related thrombosis.

Vein Diameter for Peripherally Inserted Catheter Insertion: A Scoping Review

Background: The risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) may be reduced if a vein of appropriate diameter is used for peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) insertion. However, clinicians may have predilections to cannulate certain vein types and use particular insertion sites (eg, right or left arm) and therefore do not necessarily assess all veins available to determine the most optimal vessel to introduce a catheter. It is important that clinicians have an understanding of the diameter of veins used for PICC insertion and the effect of patient factors such as hand dominance on vein size to determine whether their clinical practice is appropriate.

Methods: A scoping review of published literature was performed to determine existing knowledge regarding the diameters of veins used for PICC insertion and the influence of patient factors such as hand dominance and laterality (left or right arm) on vein size.

Results: There was limited published research about the diameters of the basilic, brachial, and cephalic veins at the midupper arm, with only 6 studies identified. Three of the 6 selected articles focused on vein diameter measurement to inform arteriovenous fistula development. Only 1 study included participants undergoing PICC insertion. Scant research examined the effect of laterality on vein diameter and 1 study was identified that reported the influence of hand dominance or vein type on the diameter of veins used for PICC insertion.

Conclusions: This review found that there is a paucity of studies that have examined the veins used for PICC insertion. Nevertheless, it appears that the basilic vein has the largest diameter (with smaller brachial and cephalic veins), although this is not always the case. Laterality and hand dominance does not seem to influence vein diameter. Further research about the vasculature used for PICC insertion is needed to inform clinical practice.

Assessment of thrombosis in right internal jugular vein after percutaneous superior vena cava catheter insertion during cardiovascular surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the incidence of percutaneous superior vena cava catheter-related thrombosis and identified risk factors for developing the condition in patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass.

METHODS

A total of 121 patients were evaluated. A percutaneous superior vena cava catheter was inserted into the right internal jugular vein during cardiovascular surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. The right internal jugular vein was evaluated using ultrasonography, including cross-sectional area and velocity just before insertion of the percutaneous superior vena cava catheter (preoperative) and 24 hours and 48 hours after its insertion. If an echogenic mass was detected in the right internal jugular vein, the size was measured.

RESULTS

The incidence of thrombosis in the right internal jugular vein was 56.2%. Change in the right internal jugular vein cross-sectional area and velocity had no clinical implications. Multiple logistic regression analysis identified age (odds ratio, 1.061; 95% confidence interval, 1.022-1.101; P = .002), superior vena cava catheter indwelling duration (odds ratio, 1.015; 95% confidence interval, 1.008-1.023; P < .001), and amount of transfusion platelet concentrate (odds ratio, 1.155; 95% confidence interval, 1.030-1.295; P = .013) as risk factors for percutaneous superior vena cava catheter-related thrombosis in the right internal jugular vein.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of percutaneous superior vena cava catheter-related thrombosis was higher than conventional central venous catheter-related thrombosis. Risk factors were age, superior vena cava catheter indwelling duration, and amount of transfusion platelet concentrate.

The dwell time and survival rates of PICC placement after balloon angioplasty in patient with unexpected central venous obstruction

PURPOSE

To evaluate the dwell time and actual survival rates of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) placements after balloon angioplasty in patients with unexpected central venous obstructions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were obtained on all PICC insertions performed in a tertiary care hospital from August 2008 to December 2013. Thirty-five PICCs attempted after balloon angioplasty in 25 patients (15 male and 10 female patients; mean age, 63 years). Fisher's exact test was used to test for differences in reasons for catheter removal between the groups of patients with stenosis or obstructions. Survival curves for PICC dwell time of all patients, stenosis group, and obstruction group were generated separately using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and compared with log-rank tests.

RESULTS

There were a total 21 obstructions and 14 stenoses. The overall technical success rate of PICC placement after balloon angioplasty was 94% (33 of 35 procedures). The PICC dwell time was determined for 27 PICCs and ranged from 4 to 165 days (mean, 39.6 days). Among all PICCs, 16 were removed early, resulting in an actual survival rate of 40.7% (11 of 27 PICCs). There were no significant differences in reasons for catheter removal between the stenosis and obstruction groups (p = 0.24). The dwell times for both groups were not significantly different by Kaplan-Meier analysis (p = 0.54).

CONCLUSIONS

PICC placement after balloon angioplasty is a good treatment option for patients with unexpected central venous lesions, and offers high technical success rates. The actual survival rate was relatively lower (40.7%) than that from previous studies.

Risk factors associated with catheter-related upper extremity deep vein thrombosis in patients with peripherally inserted central venous catheters: a prospective observational cohort study: part 2

This is the second part of a 2-part series that reports on the results of a prospective observational cohort study designed to examine risk factors associated with symptomatic upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) in patients with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). Part 1, published in the May/June 2014 issue of the Journal of Infusion Nursing, provided an extensive review and critique of the literature regarding risk factors associated with catheter-related UEDVT and identified 28 suspected risk factors. A study was undertaken to examine each of the risk factors among 203 acute care patients with PICCs, 13 of whom experienced a UEDVT, yielding an incidence of 6.4%. The most common reason for admission was infection (33.5%), and the primary reason for insertion of the PICC was venous access (58.6%). Hypertension (P = .022) and obesity (P = .008), defined as a body mass index ≥30, were associated with UEDVT. The clinical symptoms of edema (P < .001) and a 3-cm or more increase in arm circumference (P < .001) in the PICC arm after PICC placement were associated with UEDVT. All other variables were not statistically significant. The results suggest that patients who are obese and hypertensive may be at greater risk for the development of UEDVT and that the physical finding of edema and increased arm circumference in the PICC arm are possibly suggestive of UEDVT.

Catheter-related thrombosis: A practical approach

Catheter-related thrombosis is a relatively common complication of central venous catheter insertion. Central venous catheter use is ubiquitous in the critical care setting and often in patients with multiple risk factors for venous thromboembolism. With a trend towards increased use of peripherally inserted central catheters, the incidence of catheter-related thrombosis is likely to increase further. Despite the scale of the problem, there is a paucity of evidence-based guidelines concerning the management of patients with catheter-related thrombosis, particularly in critically unwell patients. This has led to heterogeneity in clinical practice. In this review, we describe the risk factors for developing catheter-related thrombosis and provide practical advice for clinicians on how to recognise, diagnose and treat this common problem.

Two Serious Complications of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters Indicating the Need to Formalize Training for Placing Central Venous Vascular Access Devices

Peripherally inserted central catheters are being used in increasing numbers. Common (thrombosis, infection, phlebitis, malfunction, or disconnection) and rare complications (pericardial tamponade) have been well explored. We describe 2 serious complications that resolved without sequelae. Both complications occurred in the context of limited provider competence. We conclude that vascular access is more than "just" placing a catheter; it can have serious clinical impact and has evolved into a specialist skill. With increasing use of intravascular catheters, the need for a formalized training becomes urgent.

Central venous catheters and upper extremity deep vein thrombosis in medical inpatients: the Medical Inpatients and Thrombosis (MITH) Study

BACKGROUND

Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) is an increasingly recognized complication in medical inpatients, with few data available regarding the incidence, risk factors and association with central venous catheter (CVC) use.

METHODS

Between 2002 and 2009 all cases of hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism (VTE) at a university hospital were frequency matched 1 : 2 to non-cases without VTE by admission year and medical service. Records were abstracted to identify, characterize and assess risk factors for UEDVT. Weighted logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) for UEDVT associated with use of a CVC, adjusting for known VTE risk factors.

RESULTS

Two hundred and ninety-nine cases of VTE complicated 64 034 admissions to medical services (4.6 per 1000 admissions). UEDVT constituted 51% (91/180) of all deep vein thrombosis (DVT), for an incidence of 1.4 per 1000 admissions (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-1.7). There were 247 CVCs placed per 1000 admissions (95% CI, 203-292). The use of a CVC was associated with a 14.0-fold increased risk of UEDVT (95% CI, 5.9-33.2), but was not associated with a significantly increased risk of PE (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.8-2.1). Peripherally inserted central catheters had a higher OR for UEDVT (OR, 13.0; 95% CI, 6.1-27.6) than centrally inserted central venous catheters (CICC) (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.7-6.8).

CONCLUSION

UEDVT is a relevant complication affecting medical inpatients, accounting for half of hospital-acquired DVTs. Use of CVCs was strongly associated with risk of UEDVT.

Peripherally inserted central venous catheter safety in burn care: a single-center retrospective cohort review

The use of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line for central venous access in thermally injured patients has increased in recent years despite a lack of evidence regarding safety in this patient population. A recent survey of invasive catheter practices among 44 burn centers in the United States found that 37% of burn units use PICC lines as part of their treatment protocol. The goal of this study was to compare PICC-associated complication rates with the existing literature in both the critical care and burn settings. The methodology involved is a single institution retrospective cohort review of patients who received a PICC line during admission to a regional burn unit between 2008 and 2013. Fifty-three patients were identified with a total of seventy-three PICC lines. The primary outcome measurement for this study was indication for PICC line discontinuation. The most common reason for PICC line discontinuation was that the line was no longer indicated (45.2%). Four cases of symptomatic upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (5.5%) and three cases of central line-associated bloodstream infection (4.3%, 2.72 infections per 1000 line days) were identified. PICC lines were in situ an average of 15 days (range 1 to 49 days). We suggest that PICC line-associated complication rates are similar to those published in the critical care literature. Though these rates are higher than those published in the burn literature, they are similar to central venous catheter-associated complication rates. While PICC lines can be a useful resource in the treatment of the thermally injured patient, they are associated with significant and potentially fatal risks.

Complication rates among peripherally inserted central venous catheters and centrally inserted central catheters in the medical intensive care unit

PURPOSE

There are limited contemporary data describing the rates of catheter-related deep vein thrombosis (CRDVT) and central line-associated bloodstream infection for peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) and centrally inserted central venous catheters (CICCs) in the medical intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of 200 PICCs (dual/triple lumen) and 200 CICCs (triple/quadruple lumen) placed in medical ICU adults at Mayo Rochester between 2012 and 2013. Central lines were followed from insertion time until hospital dismissal (primary analysis) or ICU discharge (secondary analysis). Symptomatic CRDVT was determined by Doppler ultrasound. Central line-associated bloodstream infection was defined according to federal reporting criteria.

RESULTS

During 1730 PICC days and 637 CICC days, the incidence of CRDVT when followed until hospital dismissal was 4% and 1% (4.6 and 3.1 per 1000 catheter-days), respectively, P = .055. When censored at the time of ICU dismissal, the rates were 2% and 1% (5.3 and 3.7 per 1000 catheter-days), P = .685. Only 1 central line-associated bloodstream infection occurred in a PICC following ICU dismissal, P > .999.

CONCLUSIONS

Thrombotic and infectious complications were uncommon following PICC and CICC insertion, with no significant difference in complication rates observed. Half of PICC DVTs occurred on the general floor, and like all central catheters placed in the ICU, PICCs should be aggressively discontinued when no longer absolutely needed.

The Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC): Results From a Multispecialty Panel Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method

Use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) has grown substantially in recent years. Increasing use has led to the realization that PICCs are associated with important complications, including thrombosis and infection. Moreover, some PICCs may not be placed for clinically valid reasons. Defining appropriate indications for insertion, maintenance, and care of PICCs is thus important for patient safety. An international panel was convened that applied the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to develop criteria for use of PICCs. After systematic reviews of the literature, scenarios related to PICC use, care, and maintenance were developed according to patient population (for example, general hospitalized, critically ill, cancer, kidney disease), indication for insertion (infusion of peripherally compatible infusates vs. vesicants), and duration of use (≤5 days, 6 to 14 days, 15 to 30 days, or ≥31 days). Within each scenario, appropriateness of PICC use was compared with that of other venous access devices. After review of 665 scenarios, 253 (38%) were rated as appropriate, 124 (19%) as neutral/uncertain, and 288 (43%) as inappropriate. For peripherally compatible infusions, PICC use was rated as inappropriate when the proposed duration of use was 5 or fewer days. Midline catheters and ultrasonography-guided peripheral intravenous catheters were preferred to PICCs for use between 6 and 14 days. In critically ill patients, nontunneled central venous catheters were preferred over PICCs when 14 or fewer days of use were likely. In patients with cancer, PICCs were rated as appropriate for irritant or vesicant infusion, regardless of duration. The panel of experts used a validated method to develop appropriate indications for PICC use across patient populations. These criteria can be used to improve care, inform quality improvement efforts, and advance the safety of medical patients.

The Association Between PICC Use and Venous Thromboembolism in Upper and Lower Extremities

BACKGROUND

Peripherally inserted central catheters are associated with upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis. Whether they also are associated with lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism is unknown. We examined the risk of venous thromboembolism in deep veins of the arm, leg, and chest after peripherally inserted central catheter placement.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of 76,242 hospitalized medical patients from 48 Michigan hospitals. Peripherally inserted central catheter presence, comorbidities, venous thrombosis risk factors, and thrombotic events within 90 days from hospital admission were ascertained by phone and record review. Cox proportional hazards models were fit to examine the association between peripherally inserted central catheter placement and 90-day hazard of upper- and lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, adjusting for patient-level characteristics and natural clustering within hospitals.

RESULTS

A total of 3790 patients received a peripherally inserted central catheter during hospitalization. From hospital admission to 90 days, 876 thromboembolic events (208 upper-extremity deep vein thromboses, 372 lower-extremity deep vein thromboses, and 296 pulmonary emboli) were identified. After risk adjustment, peripherally inserted central catheter use was independently associated with all-cause venous thromboembolism (hazard ratio [HR], 3.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.59-3.85), upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis (HR, 10.49; 95% CI, 7.79-14.11), and lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.02-2.15). Peripherally inserted central catheter use was not associated with pulmonary embolism (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.86-2.06). Results were robust to sensitivity analyses incorporating receipt of pharmacologic prophylaxis during hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

Peripherally inserted central catheter use is associated with upper- and lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis. Weighing the thrombotic risks conferred by peripherally inserted central catheters against clinical benefits seems necessary.

Risk factors associated with catheter-related upper extremity deep vein thrombosis in patients with peripherally inserted central venous catheters: literature review: part 1

This is part 1 of a 2-part series of articles that report on the results of a prospective observational cohort study designed to examine the risk factors associated with symptomatic upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) in patients with peripherally inserted central catheters. This article provides an extensive review and critique of the literature that serves to explicate what is currently known about risk factors associated with catheter-related UEDVT. Risk factors such as anticoagulant use, cancer, infection, hypertension, catheter tip placement, and catheter size were identified most frequently in the literature as being associated with UEDVT development. Other risk factors--such as obesity, smoking history, surgery, and presence of pain or edema--were examined in a limited number of studies and lacked consistent evidence of their impact on UEDVT development. The subsequent study that evolved from the review of the literature investigates the relationship between identified risk factors and UEDVT development.

Ultrasound-Guided Arm Ports: Indications, Techniques, and Management

Purpose: Various venous access devices are available, including peripheral venous lines, peripherally inserted central catheters lines, and subcutaneous port catheters. The latter provides medium-to long-term venous access and includes medical devices that can be inserted either on the chest (chest ports) or in the arm (arm ports). We report the techniques, dedicated indications, and main complications of arm port insertion using the ultrasonography (US) guidance method.

Methods: Tips and tricks of percutaneous real-time US-guided vein access technique in the arm are reviewed, and a brief literature review is reported.

Results: Technical feasibility is almost 99%. US guidance allows depiction of anatomic variants, reduces the number of failed attempts, and increases the technical access rate compared with venography-guided access. Comparison of arm ports to chest ports reveals a higher global complication rate. We also report typical (mechanical) complications and dedicated indications, including contraindications to chest port insertion and selected patients for whom chest ports are not possible (eg, those with breast, head, and neck cancer; obesity; cosmesis; and requiring upright position).

Conclusions: Arm port insertion under US guidance is safe and effective, and has dedicated indications.

A comparison of silicone and polyurethane PICC lines and postinsertion complication rates: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To determine postinsertion complication rate for peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), in particular the difference between silicone and polyurethane lines in general population groups as well as oncology and non-oncology patient groups.

METHODS

A systematic review of prospective and retrospective studies in the English language between January 2000 and October 2013 focusing on postinsertion complication rates for PICCs in the adult population. Joanna Briggs Institute tools were used to extract data from the final 19 articles with information collated relating to catheter type, patient type, overall complication rate, rates of infection, occlusion, dislodgment, phlebitis, thrombus and rupture.

RESULTS

Overall, the PICCs complication rates ranged from 8 to 50%. Although both lines saw similar overall rates upon closer observation, the strengths and weaknesses of both lines are shown.Polyurethane PICC lines were found to provide lower rates of infection, dislodgment, thrombus and rupture complications.Mixed results were found with catheter line occlusions, overall averages showing polyurethane lines slightly higher rates than silicone. Oncology patients however saw opposite results.Phlebitis rates saw the largest division among the postinsertion complication rates, with 6.7% more phlebitis in the general patient group and 14.5% in the oncology group more for those with polyurethane PICC lines compared with the silicone.

CONCLUSIONS

Both silicone and polyurethane PICC lines exhibit nearly identical overall average postinsertion compilation rates; however, it is the type of complications experienced that differ. Overall, oncology patients can expect to experience higher levels of postinsertion complications.

Focus on peripherally inserted central catheters in critically ill patients

Venous access devices are of pivotal importance for an increasing number of critically ill patients in a variety of disease states and in a variety of clinical settings (emergency, intensive care, surgery) and for different purposes (fluids or drugs infusions, parenteral nutrition, antibiotic therapy, hemodynamic monitoring, procedures of dialysis/apheresis). However, healthcare professionals are commonly worried about the possible consequences that may result using a central venous access device (CVAD) (mainly, bloodstream infections and thrombosis), both peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and centrally inserted central catheters (CICCs). This review aims to discuss indications, insertion techniques, and care of PICCs in critically ill patients. PICCs have many advantages over standard CICCs. First of all, their insertion is easy and safe -due to their placement into peripheral veins of the arm- and the advantage of a central location of catheter tip suitable for all osmolarity and pH solutions. Using the ultrasound-guidance for the PICC insertion, the risk of hemothorax and pneumothorax can be avoided, as well as the possibility of primary malposition is very low. PICC placement is also appropriate to avoid post-procedural hemorrhage in patients with an abnormal coagulative state who need a CVAD. Some limits previously ascribed to PICCs (i.e., low flow rates, difficult central venous pressure monitoring, lack of safety for radio-diagnostic procedures, single-lumen) have delayed their start up in the intensive care units as common practice. Though, the recent development of power-injectable PICCs overcomes these technical limitations and PICCs have started to spread in critical care settings. Two important take-home messages may be drawn from this review. First, the incidence of complications varies depending on venous accesses and healthcare professionals should be aware of the different clinical performance as well as of the different risks associated with each type of CVAD (CICCs or PICCs). Second, an inappropriate CVAD choice and, particularly, an inadequate insertion technique are relevant-and often not recognized-potential risk factors for complications in critically ill patients. We strongly believe that all healthcare professionals involved in the choice, insertion or management of CVADs in critically ill patients should know all potential risk factors of complications. This knowledge may minimize complications and guarantee longevity to the CVAD optimizing the risk/benefit ratio of CVAD insertion and use. Proper management of CVADs in critical care saves lines and lives. Much evidence from the medical literature and from the clinical practice supports our belief that, compared to CICCs, the so-called power-injectable peripherally inserted central catheters are a good alternative choice in critical care.

Peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-related thrombosis in critically ill patients

BACKGROUND

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) are being increasingly used in critical care setting. However, PICCs are associated with a number of complications, particularly upper extremity venous thrombosis (UEVT), leading to post-thrombotic syndrome, pulmonary embolism and increased risk of catheter-related infection.

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature surrounding PICCs and highlight the epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis and management of PICC-related thrombosis in critically ill patients.

DATA SOURCES AND EXTRACTION

We performed an electronic literature search of the databases PubMed, EMBASE and Google scholar using set search terms, from their commencement date to the end of January 2014.

SUMMARY OF REVIEW

It has been shown that PICCs may double the risk of deep venous thrombosis compared with centrally inserted venous catheters, in critically ill patients. However, the incidence of PICC-related thrombosis in critically ill patients has not been quantified. Ultrasonography is the preferred diagnostic imaging modality. There are no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the best treatment of PICC-related thrombosis in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting and in most cohort studies, anticoagulation strategies with or without PICC removal have been used.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision to insert a PICC should be taken after careful risk stratification. There is lack of high-quality evidence assessing prevention strategies and management of PICC-related thrombosis in the ICU. Well-designed RCTs are required to estimate the prevalence of UEVT in ICU patients with PICCs and evaluate the efficacy and magnitude of clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of therapeutic strategies.