The use of hypnotic communication in PICC placement: randomized controlled trial study.

Every time a patient undergoes a medical procedure, unpredicted personal stress occurs. According to the available literature, the hypnotic communication technique has been used to reduce stress and pain during several major invasive procedures. The primary goal of this study was to compare the effectiveness of hypnotic communication combined with buffered Lidocaine, versus buffered Lidocaine alone, on patients' negative emotions while undergoing Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheter (PICC) placement. Secondary aims were evaluating patients' pain, satisfaction, and procedure timing and costs. A randomized controlled trial was conducted in an Italian Hospital involving patients who needed a PICC, with any disease or condition, aged over 18, cognitively oriented, able to hear, and willing to give consent. Emotional assessment was performed using the Emotion Thermometer Tool. Sixty-seven subjects were enrolled: 17 refused to participate, and 25 were randomly assigned to each group. The results showed a statistically significant higher decline in the total Emotion Thermometer Tool score for the experimental group using hypnotic communication. A significant mean reduction in anger and depression was also observed, while both groups reported low levels of perceived pain. Hypnotic communication appears to be a successful method for reducing emotional stress during PICC placement. However, further research is needed to determine the relationship between hypnotic communication, emotional distress, and pain perception in patients undergoing central vascular catheter insertion.

Retrospective survey from vascular access team Lombardy net in COVID-19 era.

BACKGROUND: Venous Access Devices (VADs) are the most used devices in COVID-19 patients. OBJECTIVE: Identify VADs implanted, catheter related thrombosis (CRT), catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), and accidental remove of VADs in both COVID-19 positive and COVID-19 free patients. Successive analysis was conducted comparing COVID-19 positive patients with COVID-19 free with inverse probability propensity score weights using simple regression to account for these two confounders (peripheral tip as central/peripheral and hospitalization as no/yes). METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective cohort study collected data from seven hospitals in Lombardy during the pandemic period from February 21st to May 31st 2020. RESULTS: A total of 2206 VADs were evaluated, 1107 (50.2%) of which were inserted in COVID-19 patients. In COVID-19 cohort the first choice was Long Peripheral Cannula in 388 patients (35.1%) followed by Midline Catheter in 385 (34.8%). The number of "central tip" VADs inserted in COVID-free inpatients and COVID-19 positive were similar (307 vs 334). We recorded 42 (1.9%) CRT; 32 (79.2%) were observed in COVID-19 patients. A total of 19 CRBSI were diagnosed; 15 (78.95%) were observed in COVID-19. Accidental removals were the more represented complication with 123 cases, 85 (69.1%) of them were in COVID-19. COVID-19 significantly predicted occurrence of CRT (OR = 2.00(1.85-5.03); p < 0.001), CRSB (OR = 3.82(1.82-8.97); p < 0.001), and Accidental Removal (OR = 2.39(1.80-3.20); p < 0.001) in our propensity score weighted models. CONCLUSIONS: CRT, CRBSI, and accidental removal are significantly more frequent in COVID-19 patients. Accidental removals are the principal complication, for this reason, the use of subcutaneously anchored securement is recommended for a shorter period than usual.

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.