Practical use of the central venous access port for contrast-enhanced CT: comparison with peripheral intravenous access regarding enhancement and safety

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of using the central venous (CV) port compared with peripheral intravenous access for contrast-material injection for contrast enhancement during the portal venous phase.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients were divided into three groups: CV delay, CV routine, and peripheral access (PA) groups. Patients in the CV delay group underwent injection in the arm-down position with an additional delay, while those in the CV routine and PA groups underwent injections with the routine injection protocol for portal venous phase imaging. Contrast enhancement was evaluated by measuring the mean radiodensity (Hounsfield units) values for the aortic arch, abdominal aorta, inferior vena cava, portal vein, and spleen. The peak injection pressure was recorded and compared among the three groups.

RESULTS

No complications related to power injection were observed during 119 contrast-material injections performed using the CV port device. The CV delay group showed significantly lower radiodensity values than the PA group (165.7 ± 20.1 versus 181 ± 19 HU [p<0.01] for the portal vein); however, no significant differences in mean radiodensity values were observed between the CV routine and PA groups (p>0.05). The median peak injection pressure was 73.5, 67, and 47 psi in the CV delay, CV routine, and PA groups, respectively (p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

The CV port can be used for safe contrast-material injection while maintaining contrast enhancement on portal venous phase comparable to that achieved with peripheral intravenous access.

Diagnosis and management of secondary malposition of PICC into the azygos vein

BACKGROUND

Peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) has been widely used. The catheter-related complications might occur and the reports of secondary malposition into azygos veins were rare.

METHODS

This retrospective review summarized the experience in diagnosis and management of secondary malposition of PICC into azygos veins in 25 cases.

RESULTS

When the catheter dysfunction occurred in the PICC on the left limb, it was necessary to consider whether there would be malposition into azygos veins after other reasons were excluded. The malposition could be diagnosed by chest lateral radiograph or chest computed tomography. The secondary malposition into azygos veins was resolved by repositioning or withdrawing the PICC. After re-inserting the catheter, it should be closely monitored whether the malposition occurred again. Intracavitary electrocardiogram positioning technology was used to confirm the catheter tip position before using corrosive drug. After the catheters withdrawn from the azygos veins, close attention should be paid to the property and concentration of the infusion drug strictly and the complications such as blockage and re-malposition. No serious complications such as infection, thrombosis and extravasation occurred in this group of patients after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our study suggested that the right limb is recommended for PICC catheterization in order to avoid secondary malposition into azygos veins and the malposition into azygos veins should be dealt with in time.

Displacement of a power-injectable PICC following computed tomography pulmonary angiogram

Displacement of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) lines during contrast-enhanced computed tomography examinations is an underappreciated phenomenon. We report a case of iatrogenic PICC line displacement following the power injection of contrast during a computed tomography pulmonary angiogram. During the study, the PICC line was shown to move on 2 occasions, resulting in 2 nondiagnostic studies. We review the available literature on the topic and suggest possible strategies to avoid this phenomenon. Radiologists should be aware of PICC line migration, and it should become common practice to review the catheter tip position after computed tomography examinations.

Tip Migration Post-Contrast Pressure Injection Through Pressure-Injectable Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters Causing Vascular Injury: A Report of 3 Cases

Pressure-injectable peripherally inserted central catheters are now widely used for contrast pressure injections for CT scans. While they are generally regarded as safe, they are not free from complication. In this case review, we present three cases of PICC tips migrating post-CT contrast pressure injection including into the pleural cavity and subsequent complications, to raise awareness of this complication not previously encountered in our institution. Level of Evidence Level 4, Case Series.

Systematic review of the safety and efficacy of contrast injection via venous catheters for contrast-enhanced computed tomography

•

In ICU patients, contrast injection via central venous catheters is a safe alternative to peripheral injection.

•

Implementing a safety protocol before power injection via central venous catheters is advisable.

•

The quality of scans varies and remains not sufficiently investigated in scans with higher flow rates.

Objective

To examine the safety and efficacy of contrast injection through a central venous catheter (CVC) for contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT).

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed. Studies were deemed eligible if they reported on the use of CVCs for contrast administration. Selected articles were assessed for their relevance and risk of bias. Articles with low relevance and high risk of bias or both were excluded. Data from included articles was extracted.

Results

Seven studies reported on the use of CVCs for contrast administration. Catheter rupture did not occur in any study. The incidence of dislocation ranged from 2.2-15.4%. Quality of scans was described in three studies, with less contrast enhancement of pulmonary arteries and the thoracic aorta in two studies, and average or above average quality in one study. Four other studies used higher flowrates, but did not report quality of scans.

Conclusion

Contrast injection via CVCs can be performed safely for CECT when using a strict protocol. Quality of scans depended on multiple factors like flow rate, indication of the scan, and cardiac output of the patient. In each patient, an individual evaluation whether to use the CVC as access for contrast media should be made, while bolus tracking may be mandatory in most cases.

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.