RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) has become a common procedure. Although ultrasound (US)-guidance has improved success rates, a small percentage of malposition is inevitable. The purpose of our study is to evaluate malposition rates of US-guided bedside PICC catheter insertion, and the clinical factors associated with malposition. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study evaluating 5981 patients who had undergone ultrasound-guided bedside PICC placement from January 2017 to December 2021 at a single tertiary center. Final tip location was confirmed on chest radiograph. RESULTS: Patients were categorized into optimal, suboptimal, and malposition groups according to final tip location. 4866 cases (81.7%) showed optimal tip position, 790 (13.3%) were suboptimal, and 299 (5.0%) were malpositioned. Logistic regression analysis identified six variables associated with tip malposition; height (odds ratio (OR) 1.044; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.028-1.061; p < 0.001), body mass index (BMI) (OR 1.051; 95% CI, 1.017-1.087; p = 0.003), prior failure at accessing peripheral intravenous (IV) access (OR 1.718; 95% CI, 1.215-2.428; p = 0.002), side of the arm (OR 3.467; 95% CI, 2.457-4.891; p < 0.001), length of the catheter (OR 0.763; 95% CI, 0.734-0.794; p < 0.001), and number of previous central catheter insertions (OR 1.069; 95% CI, 1.004-1.140; p = 0.038). Malpositioned catheters were corrected by either bedside repositioning, bedside reinsertion, fluoroscopic reinsertion, switching to jugular catheters or catheter removal. No patient related factors were significantly associated with malposition or success of reposition. CONCLUSION: US-guidance can help reduce catheter malposition during bedside PICC insertion. Patients with risk factors such as multiple previous central vein insertions, failed peripheral line insertions, left arm insertion, or high BMI should undergo thorough sonographic evaluation of the arm vessels to prevent malposition.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Polymyxin B hemoperfusion (PMX-HP) has been used as a treatment for intra-abdominal septic shock by absorbing and removing endotoxins of gram-negative bacilli. AIM: To investigate the clinical efficacy of PMX-HP in patients with gram-negative septic shock who underwent abdominal surgery. METHODS: From January 2012 to December 2018, patients who had septic shock secondary to peritonitis were enrolled. They were classified into PMX-HP treated and control groups based on postopreative intervention using PMX-HP. The clinical outcomes were compared using 1:1 propensity score matching methods to balance the overall distribution between the two groups. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 40 patients were analyzed (20 patients in the PMX group and 20 patients in the control group). The scores of total Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, renal SOFA and coagulation SOFA were significantly improved in the PMX group but not in the control group. (from 11.2 ± 5.8 to 4.7 ± 3.5 in PMX group vs 10.0 ± 4.0 to 8.7 ± 7.3 in control group, P = 0.047 from 2.6 ± 1.0 to 0.7 ± 1.0 in PMX group vs 2.6 ± 1.5 to 2.8 ± 1.6 in control group, P = 0.000, from 1.6 ± 1.5 to 1.3 ± 1.3 in PMX group vs 1.2 ± 1.2 to 2.8 ± 1.8 in control group, P = 0.014, respectively). Further, the length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay was significantly shorter in PMX group. However, no statistically significant difference was found in ICU mortality (50% in PMX group vs 50% in control group). CONCLUSION: PMX-HP is a feasible adjunct treatment for peritonitis in ICU patients with peritonitis for improved organ impairment and to stabilize hemodynamics. It would be helpful to enhance clinical outcomes especially in patients with complete elimination of the source of gram-negative bacilli infection by surgical procedure accompanied with conventional treatment of sepsis.