Awareness of peripheral IV catheters among nurses, physicians, and trainees: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVs) are the most frequently used invasive device in hospitalized patients. These devices are not benign and are associated with complications. However, clinician awareness of them is variable and poorly understood. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter, observational point prevalence study to assess awareness of PIV presence among clinicians caring for hospitalized patients in 4 hospitals between May 2018 and February 2019 located in Michigan, USA. We first assessed patients for the presence of a PIV then interviewed their providers. Differences in awareness by provider type were assessed via χ² tests; P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Analyses were performed on Stata MP v16. RESULTS: A total of 1,385 patients and 4,003 providers were interviewed. Nurses had the greatest awareness of overall PIV presence, 98.6%, while attendings were correct 88.1% of the time. Nurses were more likely to correctly assess PIV presence and exact location than physicians (67.7% vs <30% for all others). Awareness of PIV presence did not significantly vary in patients on contact precautions or those receiving infusions. CONCLUSIONS: Given the ubiquity of PIVs and known complications, methods to increase awareness to ensure appropriate care and removal are necessary.

Right Ventricular Perforation Leading to Sudden Death Due to Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) Canula Dislodgement.

ECMO has been playing an increasingly important role in the management of coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, despite its potential benefits, high mortality rates are still being reported worldwide. Herein, we report the case of a 32-year-old male who presented with worsening shortness of breath secondary to COVID-19. Unfortunately, he experienced a sentinel event when the cannula became dislodged due to coughing, which led to a right ventricular perforation and sudden pulseless electrical activity (PEA) cardiac arrest.

Additive Value of Preprocedural Computed Tomography Planning Versus Stand-Alone Transesophageal Echocardiogram Guidance to Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: Comparison of Real-World Practice.

Background Transesophageal echocardiogram is currently the standard preprocedural imaging for left atrial appendage occlusion. This study aimed to assess the additive value of preprocedural computed tomography (CT) planning versus stand-alone transesophageal echocardiogram imaging guidance to left atrial appendage occlusion. Methods and Results We retrospectively reviewed 485 Watchman implantations at a single center to compare the outcomes of using additional CT preprocedural planning (n=328, 67.6%) versus stand-alone transesophageal echocardiogram guidance (n=157, 32.4%) for left atrial appendage occlusion. The primary end point was the rate of successful device implantation without major peri-device leak (>5 mm). Secondary end points included major adverse events, total procedural time, delivery sheath and devices used, risk of major peri-device leak and device-related thrombus at follow-up imaging. A single/anterior-curve delivery sheath was used more commonly in those who underwent CT imaging (35.9% versus 18.8%; P<0.001). Additional preprocedural CT planning was associated with a significantly higher successful device implantation rate (98.5% versus 94.9%; P=0.02), a shorter procedural time (median, 45.5 minutes versus 51.0 minutes; P=0.03) and a less frequent change of device size (5.6% versus 12.1%; P=0.01), particularly device upsize (4% versus 9.4%; P=0.02). However, there was no significant difference in the risk of major adverse events (2.1% versus 1.9%; P=0.87). Only 1 significant peri-device leak (0.2%) and 5 device-related thrombi were detected in follow-up (1.2%) with no intergroup difference. Conclusions Additional preprocedural planning using CT in Watchman implantation was associated with a higher successful device implantation rate, a shorter total procedural time, and a less frequent change of device sizes.

Unprotected discharge: absence of stroke prevention strategies in patients with atrial fibrillation admitted for bleeding.

PURPOSE: Patients with atrial fibrillation or flutter (AF) on anticoagulation (AC) for stroke prevention are at an increased risk of bleeding. A common clinical dilemma is deciding when to safely restart AC following a bleed. Although studies have shown better outcomes with re-initiation of AC after hemostasis, there are clinical barriers to restarting AC. Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is a safe and efficacious alternative for patients who are unable to tolerate AC following major bleeding. We aimed to evaluate the rate of stroke prevention strategies instituted at time of discharge in patients with AF on AC who had been hospitalized for a bleeding event. METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients with AF on AC admitted for bleeding between January 2016 and August 2019. The type of AC, form of bleeding, and CHA2DS2VASc were collected. Stroke prevention strategies upon discharge and at 3 months were noted. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-four patients with AF on AC were hospitalized with a bleeding event, of which 10.9% died. Among patients who survived, AC was restarted in 45.2% of patients, 9.7% were referred for LAAO, and 45.1% were discharged without stroke prevention strategy. At 3 months, 32.6% of patients still had no documented stroke prophylaxis. Those referred for LAAO had, on average, higher CHA2DS2VASc (5 ± 1 vs 4 ± 1, p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: A significant number of patients with AF hospitalized for bleeding were discharged with no plan for stroke prophylaxis. Despite its safety and efficacy, LAAO appears to be an underutilized alternative in AF patients with high bleeding risk.