Central or peripheral catheters for initial venous access of ICU patients: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The vast majority of ICU patients require some form of venous access. There are no evidenced-based guidelines concerning the use of either central or peripheral venous catheters, despite very different complications. It remains unknown which to insert in ICU patients. We investigated the rate of catheter-related insertion or maintenance complications in two strategies: one favoring the central venous catheters and the other peripheral venous catheters. DESIGN: Multicenter, controlled, parallel-group, open-label randomized trial. SETTING: Three French ICUs. PATIENTS: Adult ICU patients with equal central or peripheral venous access requirement. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to receive central venous catheters or peripheral venous catheters as initial venous access. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The primary endpoint was the rate of major catheter-related complications within 28 days. Secondary endpoints were the rate of minor catheter-related complications and a composite score-assessing staff utilization and time spent to manage catheter insertions. Analysis was intention to treat. We randomly assigned 135 patients to receive a central venous catheter and 128 patients to receive a peripheral venous catheter. Major catheter-related complications were greater in the peripheral venous catheter than in the central venous catheter group (133 vs 87, respectively, p=0.02) although none of those was life threatening. Minor catheter-related complications were 201 with central venous catheters and 248 with peripheral venous catheters (p=0.06). 46% (60/128) patients were managed throughout their ICU stay with peripheral venous catheters only. There were significantly more peripheral venous catheter-related complications per patient in patients managed solely with peripheral venous catheter than in patients that received peripheral venous catheter and at least one central venous catheter: 1.92 (121/63) versus 1.13 (226/200), p<0.005. There was no difference in central venous catheter-related complications per patient between patients initially randomized to peripheral venous catheters but subsequently crossed-over to central venous catheter and patients randomized to the central venous catheter group. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival probability did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSION: In ICU patients with equal central or peripheral venous access requirement, central venous catheters should preferably be inserted: a strategy associated with less major complications.

Impact of unplanned extubation and reintubation after weaning on nosocomial pneumonia risk in the intensive care unit: a prospective multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: The authors prospectively evaluated the occurrence and outcomes of unplanned extubations (self-extubation and accidental extubation) and reintubation after weaning, and examined the hypothesis that these events may differ regarding their influence on the risk of nosocomial pneumonia. METHODS: Data were taken from a prospective, 2-yr database including 750 mechanically ventilated patients from six intensive care units. RESULTS: One hundred five patients (14%) experienced at least one episode of these 3 events; 51 self-extubations occurred in 38 patients, 24 accidental extubations in 22 patients, and 56 reintubations after weaning in 45 patients. The incidence density of these 3 events was 16.4 per 1,000 mechanical ventilation days. Reintubation within 48 h was needed consistently after accidental extubation but was unnecessary in 37% of self-extubated patients. Unplanned extubation and reintubation after weaning were associated with longer total mechanical ventilation (17 vs. 6 days; P < 0.0001), intensive care unit stay (22 vs. 9 days; P < 0.0001), and hospital stay (34 vs. 18 days; P < 0.0001) than in control group, but did not influence intensive care unit or hospital mortality. The incidence of nosocomial pneumonia was significantly higher in patients with unplanned extubation or reintubation after weaning (27.6% vs. 13.8%; P = 0.002). In a Cox model adjusting on severity at admission, unplanned extubation and reintubation after weaning increased the risk of nosocomial pneumonia (relative risk, 1.80; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-2.80; P = 0.009). This risk increase was entirely ascribable to accidental extubation (relative risk, 5.3; 95% confidence interval, 2.8-9.9; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Accidental extubation but not self-extubation or reintubation after weaning increased the risk of nosocomial pneumonia. These 3 events may deserve evaluation as an indicator for quality-of-care studies.