ABSTRACT
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To describe the outcomes of midclavicular catheters related to first insertion success rate, catheter dwell time, rate of catheter survival until the end of the treatment, and complication rates, as well as identify risk factors associated with early catheter removal. BACKGROUND: Midclavicular catheters are peripheral venous catheters that are typically 20-25 cm in length. DESIGN: Inception cohort study. METHODS: We included all the midclavicular lines inserted in patients who met any of the following criteria: (a) difficult venous access; (b) administration of intravenous therapy expected to last between 6 and 30 days with non-irritant (pH=5-9) and/or non-vesicant drugs; or (c) contraindications to central venous catheter placement. The incidence of adverse events was calculated using percentages and episodes per 1,000 catheter days. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify significant risk factors for unexpected catheter removal by calculating odds ratios. Catheter survival was assessed using Cox regression analysis. The STROBE guidelines were followed. RESULTS: Overall, 2,275 midclavicular lines were placed in 1,841 participants. The insertion success rate was 99.4% and the mean catheter dwell time was 21.82 days. The rate of adverse events was .7 per 1,000 catheter days, the most common complications being thrombosis (.39) and catheter-associated bacteraemia (.14). No significant association was found between adverse events and the administration of irritant drugs. The incidence of unexpected removal was 6.7 per 1,000 catheter days. The multivariate analysis showed that both age ≤70 years and home therapy were associated with a lower likelihood of catheter failure. CONCLUSIONS: Midclavicular catheters are associated with a high rate of insertion success and low rates of adverse events and unplanned removal. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Midclavicular lines are a safe alternative for intravenous therapy lasting more than 6 days, even with irritant drugs.
Subject(s)
Catheter-Related Infections , Catheterization, Central Venous , Catheterization, Peripheral , Central Venous Catheters , Aged , Catheter-Related Infections/etiology , Catheterization, Central Venous/adverse effects , Catheterization, Peripheral/adverse effects , Catheters , Catheters, Indwelling/adverse effects , Cohort Studies , Device Removal , Humans , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: More than half of patients with multimorbidity require intravenous therapy during their hospital stay. The aims of this study are to describe difficult intravenous access (DIVA) and vascular access care provided to this patient population and to explore the differences between easy and DIVA groups. METHODS: A cohort study was conducted in patients with multimorbidity admitted to 2 hospitals between March and November 2013. The variables used to describe vascular care included choice and placement of devices, catheter swell time, and occurrence of adverse events. The incidence of adverse events was expressed as number cases per 1000 catheter days and χ2, Student's t, or Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare the care provided between both groups. Odds rates were calculated to determine the risk of complications associated with DIVA. RESULTS: We recruited 135 patients, of whom 34.8% were women. Overall, 59.3% had DIVA. A total of 224 catheters were inserted, patients with difficult access requiring a mean of 1.71 catheters and those with easy access 1.58 catheters. Two or more attempts were required to place catheters in 23% of cases in the difficult access group versus 2.50% in the easy access group. Mean catheter dwell time was 3.84 days and 3.99 days, and the adverse event rate was 111/1000 and 83.6/1000 catheter days, respectively. The odds ratio for complications was 1.596. CONCLUSIONS: Multimorbid patients with DIVA have a higher rate of complications as well as requiring more catheters and more placement attempts.
Subject(s)
Catheterization, Central Venous , Catheterization, Peripheral , Administration, Intravenous , Catheterization, Central Venous/adverse effects , Catheterization, Peripheral/adverse effects , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Incidence , Male , MultimorbidityABSTRACT
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence of difficult venous access in complex patients with multimorbidity and to identify associated risk factors. BACKGROUND: In highly complex patients, factors like ageing, the need for frequent use of irritant medication and multiple venous catheterisations to complete treatment could contribute to exhaustion of venous access. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study was conducted. METHODS: 'Highly complex' patients (n = 135) were recruited from March 2013-November 2013. The main study variable was the prevalence of difficult venous access, assessed using one of the following criteria: (1) a history of difficulties obtaining venous access based on more than two attempts to insert an intravenous line and (2) no visible or palpable veins. Other factors potentially associated with the risk of difficult access were also measured (age, gender and chronic illnesses). Univariate analysis was performed for each potential risk factor. Factors with p < 0·2 were then included in multivariable logistic regression analysis. Odds ratios were also calculated. RESULTS: The prevalence of difficult venous access was 59·3%. The univariate logistic regression analysis indicated that gender, a history of vascular access complications and osteoarticular disease were significantly associated with difficult venous access. The multivariable logistic regression showed that only gender was an independent risk factor and the odds ratios was 2·85. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of difficult venous access is high in this population. Gender (female) is the only independent risk factor associated with this. Previous history of several attempts at catheter insertion is an important criterion in the assessment of difficult venous access. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The prevalence of difficult venous access in complex patients is 59·3%. Significant risk factors include being female and a history of complications related to vascular access.
Subject(s)
Catheterization, Peripheral/nursing , Central Venous Catheters , Health Status , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Catheterization, Peripheral/adverse effects , Catheterization, Peripheral/methods , Checklist , Chronic Disease/therapy , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Needs Assessment , Risk Factors , Sex Factors , Statistics, NonparametricABSTRACT
Objetivo evaluar los resultados de los catéteres centrales de inserción periférica (PICC) insertados por enfermeras de la unidad de oncología y hematología con técnica ecoguiada en cuanto a éxito en la inserción, incidencias, dispositivos que llegan a fin de tratamiento y supervivencia de los catéteres. Método estudio observacional y prospectivo. Se incluyeron todos los PICC insertados mediante eco-guía a pie de cama en el Hospital Universitario Araba. La técnica se inició en junio de 2010. El estudio finalizó en noviembre de 2011. Se recogieron datos socio-demográficos, características del catéter, éxito en la inserción, duración, incidencias y motivo de retirada. Resultados Se insertaron 165 catéteres, el 95,2% a pacientes de oncología o hematología, 73 de ellos continúan aún en uso. Se obtuvo un éxito en la inserción del 89,7% (IC del 95%: 85,1%- 94,3%). Los días de uso total de los catéteres fueron 16.234 con una mediana de duración de 92 días por PICC. La incidencia más frecuente fue la extracción accidental 0,986/1.000 días de catéter (IC del 95%: 0,970-1,001/1.000). La tasa de trombosis fue de 0,308/1.000 días (IC del 95%: 0,299- 0,317) y la de bacteriemia relacionada con catéter de 0,062/1.000 días de catéter (IC del 95%: 0,058- 0,065).Conclusión la inserción del PICC eco-guiada a pie de cama puede ser realizada por enfermeras entrenadas con una elevada probabilidad de inserción exitosa. El PICC, por su baja tasa de complicaciones y su alta duración media, es un dispositivo válido como acceso venoso central de media y larga duración para pacientes oncológicos y hematológicos (AU)
Objective To evaluate the results of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) inserted by nurses using an ultrasound-guided technique at bed-side. Methods An observational and prospective study was conducted on all the PICC inserted at bed-side by an ultrasound-guided technique at the Araba University Hospital. The technique was introduced in June 2010, and the data collection period ended in November 2011. The main study variables were successful insertion, duration of PICC, incidences related to the catheter, devices reaching end of treatment and reasons for withdrawal. Patient sociodemographic data and PICC technical features were also registered. Results A total of 165 PICC were inserted, 73 are still in use, with 95.2% inserted in patients from oncology or haematology departments. Insertion was successful in the 89.7% (95% CI: 85.1%-94.3%) of the cases. The study included 16,234 catheter days, with a median dwell time of 92 days by PICC. The most frequent incidence was accidental removal in 0.986 per 1000 catheter days (95% CI=0.970-1.001). The thrombosis rate was 0.308 per 1,000 days (95% CI= 0.299-0.317), and the catheter-associated bloodstream infection rate was 0.062 per 1,000 catheter days (95% CI=0.058-0.065).Conclusion Ultrasound-guided PICC insertion can be performed at bedside by trained nurses with a high probability of success. PICC, because of its low complication rate and long indwelling catheter survival, is a suitable central venous device for long-term treatment in oncology and haematology patients (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Catheterization, Peripheral/nursing , Catheterization, Central Venous/nursing , Surgery, Computer-Assisted/methods , Prospective Studies , Neoplasms/nursing , Hematologic Neoplasms/nursingABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the results of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) inserted by nurses using an ultrasound-guided technique at bed-side. METHODS: An observational and prospective study was conducted on all the PICC inserted at bed-side by an ultrasound-guided technique at the Araba University Hospital. The technique was introduced in June 2010, and the data collection period ended in November 2011. The main study variables were successful insertion, duration of PICC, incidences related to the catheter, devices reaching end of treatment and reasons for withdrawal. Patient sociodemographic data and PICC technical features were also registered. RESULTS: A total of 165 PICC were inserted, 73 are still in use, with 95.2% inserted in patients from oncology or haematology departments. Insertion was successful in the 89.7% (95% CI: 85.1%-94.3%) of the cases. The study included 16,234 catheter days, with a median dwell time of 92 days by PICC. The most frequent incidence was accidental removal in 0.986 per 1000 catheter days (95% CI=0.970-1.001). The thrombosis rate was 0.308 per 1,000 days (95% CI= 0.299-0.317), and the catheter-associated bloodstream infection rate was 0.062 per 1,000 catheter days (95% CI=0.058-0.065). CONCLUSION: Ultrasound-guided PICC insertion can be performed at bedside by trained nurses with a high probability of success. PICC, because of its low complication rate and long indwelling catheter survival, is a suitable central venous device for long-term treatment in oncology and haematology patients.
