Comparison of outcomes from tunnelled femorally inserted central catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters: a propensity score-matched cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare catheter-related outcomes of individuals who received a tunnelled femorally inserted central catheter (tFICC) with those who received a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) in the upper extremities. DESIGN: A propensity-score matched cohort study. SETTING: A 980-bed tertiary referral hospital in South West Sydney, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: In-patients referred to the hospital central venous access service for the insertion of a central venous access device. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of all-cause catheter failure. Secondary outcomes included the rates of catheters removed because of suspected or confirmed catheter-associated infection, catheter dwell and confirmed upper or lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT). RESULTS: The overall rate of all-cause catheter failure in the matched tFICC and PICC cohort was 2.4/1000 catheter days (95% CI 1.1 to 4.4) and 3.0/1000 catheter days (95% CI 2.3 to 3.9), respectively, and when compared, no difference was observed (difference -0.63/1000 catheter days, 95% CI -2.32 to 1.06). We found no differences in catheter dwell (mean difference of 14.2 days, 95% CI -6.6 to 35.0, p=0.910); or in the cumulative probability of failure between the two groups within the first month of dwell (p=0.358). No significant differences were observed in the rate of catheters requiring removal for confirmed central line-associated bloodstream infection (difference 0.13/1000 catheter day, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.63, p=0.896). Similarly, no significant differences were found between the groups for confirmed catheter-related DVT (difference -0.11 per 1000 catheter days, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.04, p=1.00). CONCLUSION: There were no differences in catheter-related outcomes between the matched cohort of tFICC and PICC patients, suggesting that tFICCs are a possible alternative for vascular access when the veins of the upper extremities or thoracic region are not viable for catheterisation.

The burden of peripheral intravenous catheters in older hospital inpatients: A national cross-sectional study part of the ONE MILLION GLOBAL PERIPHERAL INTRAVENOUS CATHETERS COLLABORATION.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the burden of peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) in older hospitalised patients. METHODS: A cross-sectional prospective observational study (2014/2015) to describe the characteristics, indications and outcomes of PIVCs among patients aged ≥65 from 65 Australian hospitals. RESULTS: Amongst 2179 individual PIVCs (in 2041 patients, mean age 77.6 years, 45% female, 58% in NSW), 43% were inserted by doctors and 74% used that day, meaning 25% were 'idle'. Overall, 18% (393/2179) exhibited signs of PIVC-related complications. Most commonly exhibited PIVC-related complications were tenderness (4.1%) and local redness (1.8%). Nearly one in three (29.1%) dressings was soiled, loosened or had come off, and only 36.8% had the time and date documented on the dressing. Both infusing IV medications (aOR 1.74, 95% CI 1.28-2.38, p < 0.001) and inserting the PIVC in a non-upper limb vein (aOR 3.40 compared to forearm [reference site], 95% CI 1.62-7.17, p < 0.001) were independently associated with PIVC failure. Phlebitis was exhibited in 7% (154) of the patients. Only infusing intravenous medications increased the likelihood of developing symptoms of phlebitis (aOR 1.61, 95% CI 1.01-2.57, p = 0.05). Increasing age was inversely associated with symptoms of phlebitis. Among the 1575 patients (79%) who rated their PIVC experience using the Likert scale 0-10 (where 10 = 'best possible'), the median score was 8 (IQR 6-10). Age in highest quartile (>84 years) was independently associated with lower likelihood of a high score (aOR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54-0.94, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Given 1 in 5 PIVCs were identified with having complications, further research should focus on optimising PIVC use in older patients.

A randomised trial of intracavitary electrocardiography versus surface landmark measurement for central venous access device placement.

BACKGROUND: Malpositioned central venous access devices (CVADs) can lead to significant patient injury including central vein thrombosis and dysrhythmias. Intra-cavitary electrocardiography (IC ECG) has been recommended by peak professional bodies as an accurate alternative for bedside CVAD insertion, to reduce risk of malposition and allowing immediate use of the device. Our objective was to compare the effect of IC ECG on CVAD malposition compared to traditional institutional practice for CVAD placement. METHODS: Randomised controlled trial of IC ECG CVAD insertion verses traditional CVAD insertion (surface landmark measurement with post insertion x ray). Patient recruitment was from December 2016 to July 2018. The setting was a 900-bed tertiary referral hospital based in South Western Sydney, Australia. Three hundred and forty-four adult patients requiring CVAD insertion for intravenous therapy, were enrolled and randomly allocated (1:1 ratio) to either IC-ECG (n = 172) or traditional (n = 172) CVAD insertion. Our primary outcome of interest was the rate of catheters not requiring repositioning after insertion (ready for use). Secondary outcomes were comparison of procedure time and cost. RESULTS: Of the 172 patients allocated to the IC ECG method, 170 (99%) were ready for use immediately compared to 139 of the 172 (81%) in the traditional insertion group (difference, 95% confidence interval (CI): 18%, 11.9-24.1%). The total procedure time was mean 15 min (SD 8 min) for IC ECG and mean 36 min (SD 17 min) for traditional CVAD insertion (difference-19.9 min (95% CI-14.6 to -34.4). IC ECG guided CVAD insertion had a cost reduction of AUD $62.00 per procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Using IC-ECG resulted in nearly no requirement for post-insertion repositioning of CVADs resulting in savings in time and cost and virtually eliminating the need for radiographic confirmation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered at the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (http://www.anzctr.org.au). The registration number is ACTRN12620000919910.

A clinical pathway for the management of difficult venous access.

BACKGROUND: Many patients are admitted to hospital with non-visible or palpable veins, often resulting in multiple painful attempts at cannulation, anxiety and catheter failure. We developed a difficult intravenous pathway at our institution to reduce the burden of difficult access for patients by increasing first attempt success with ultrasound guidance. The emphasis was to provide a solution for hospitalised patients after business hours by training the after-hours clinical support team in ultrasound guided cannulation. METHODS: Inception cohort study of patients referred to the after-hours clinical support team including outcomes such as number of attempts at cannulation before and after referral, insertion site, type of device inserted and recorded pain score for attempts prior to referral and for attempts by the after-hours clinical support team. RESULTS: Between January and December 2016, 379 patients were referred to the after-hours clinical support team for placement of a peripheral intravenous catheter under ultrasound guidance. The median number of unsuccessful attempts before referral was 2 (IQR 2, 4), this ranged between 1 attempt to 10 attempts compared to only 1 attempt (IQR 1, 1, p < 0.001) with no more than 2 attempts in total by the after-hours clinical support team. The first time success rate by the after-hours clinical support team was 93% (n = 348). The median pain score for attempts with ultrasound use was 2/10 (IQR 1-3) compared to 7/10 (IQR 5-9) for previous attempts without ultrasound (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The use of ultrasound guidance for peripheral intravenous catheter insertion by the after-hours clinical support team for patients with difficult venous access has been successful at our institution with 9 out of every 10 catheters inserted at first attempt with significantly lower recorded pain scores.