Complication Rates of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters in Oncologic Versus Non-Oncologic Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Peripherally inserted central catheters are commonly used in cancer patients and provide vascular access for the administration of chemotherapy, antibiotics, or parenteral nutrition. Besides many advantages, they represent a source of possible complications such as catheter related blood stream infection, catheter occlusion, or thrombosis. In this study, the catheter-related complication rate between oncologic and non-oncologic patients was compared. METHODS: This retrospective cohort-study included 411 patients who underwent their first catheter placement at the Vienna General Hospital-Medical University of Vienna from January 2013 to June 2018. Patient demographics and catheter-related parameters were collected and statistically analyzed using a competing risk model. RESULTS: Mean catheter dwell time was 27.75 days. The overall complication rate was 7.54% (2.72 per 1000 catheter days). Underlying malignant disease (hazard ratio: 0.351, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.133-0.929, P = .035) and chemotherapy administration (hazard ratio: 2.837, 95% CI: 1.088-7.394, P = .033) were significantly associated with the occurrence of any kind of complication. Catheter related blood stream infection was observed among 11 (2.68%) patients and again significantly associated with chemotherapy administration (hazard ratio: 4.545, 95% CI: 1.178-17.539; P = .028). Thrombosis was found in 7 (1.70%) patients and occlusion in 13 (3.16%) cases. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Choice of venous access is an interdisciplinary decision with emphasis on patient participation. In oncologic patients, our data suggests that the benefits of peripherally inserted central catheters regarding costs, invasiveness, and accessibility might be outweighed by the higher rate of complications associated with the device. This becomes even more important in a community care setting, where standardized handling procedures and patient education play a pivotal role in device safety.

Cardiac imaging procedures and the COVID-19 pandemic: recommendations of the European Society of Cardiovascular Radiology (ESCR).

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2019 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic currently constitutes a significant burden on worldwide health care systems, with important implications on many levels, including radiology departments. Given the established fundamental role of cardiovascular imaging in modern healthcare, and the specific value of cardiopulmonary radiology in COVID-19 patients, departmental organisation and imaging programs need to be restructured during the pandemic in order to provide access to modern cardiovascular services to both infected and non-infected patients while ensuring safety for healthcare professionals. The uninterrupted availability of cardiovascular radiology services remains, particularly during the current pandemic outbreak, crucial for the initial evaluation and further follow-up of patients with suspected or known cardiovascular diseases in order to avoid unnecessary complications. Suspected or established COVID-19 patients may also have concomitant cardiovascular symptoms and require further imaging investigations. This statement by the European Society of Cardiovascular Radiology (ESCR) provides information on measures for safety of healthcare professionals and recommendations for cardiovascular imaging during the pandemic in both non-infected and COVID-19 patients.

Multimodality Imaging for Left Ventricular Hypertrophy Severity Grading: A Methodological Review

Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), defined by an increase in left ventricular mass (LVM), is a common cardiac finding generally caused by an increase in pressure or volume load. Assessing severity of LVH is of great clinical value in terms of prognosis and treatment choices, as LVH severity grades correlate with the risk for presenting cardiovascular events. The three main cardiac parameters for the assessment of LVH are wall thickness, LVM, and LV geometry. Echocardiography, with large availability and low cost, is the technique of choice for their assessment. Consequently, reference values for LVH severity in clinical guidelines are based on this technique. However, cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and computed tomography (CT) are increasingly used in clinical practice, providing excellent image quality. Nevertheless, there is no extensive data to support reference values based on these techniques, while comparative studies between the three techniques show different results in wall thickness and LVM measurements. In this paper, we provide an overview of the different methodologies used to assess LVH severity with echocardiography, CMR and CT. We argue that establishing reference values per imaging modality, and possibly indexed to body surface area and classified per gender, ethnicity and age-group, might be essential for the correct classification of LVH severity.