Accuracy of Noninvasive Blood Pressure Monitoring in Critically Ill Adults.

Background: Blood pressure (BP) is routinely invasively monitored by an arterial catheter in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, the available data comparing the accuracy of noninvasive methods to arterial catheters for measuring BP in the ICU are limited by small numbers and diverse methodologies. Purpose: To determine agreement between invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring (IABP) and noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP) in critically ill patients. Methods: This was a single center, observational study of critical ill adults in a tertiary care facility evaluating agreement (≤10% difference) between simultaneously measured IABP and NIBP. We measured clinical features at time of BP measurement inclusive of patient demographics, laboratory data, severity of illness, specific interventions (mechanical ventilation and dialysis), and vasopressor dose to identify particular clinical scenarios in which measurement agreement is more or less likely. Results: Of the 1852 critically ill adults with simultaneous IABP and NIBP readings, there was a median difference of 6 mm Hg in mean arterial pressure (MAP), interquartile range (1-12), P < .01. A logistic regression analysis identified 5 independent predictors of measurement discrepancy: increasing doses of norepinephrine (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.10 [95% confidence interval, CI 1.08-1.12] P = .03 for every change in 5 µg/min), lower MAP value (aOR 0.98 [0.98-0.99] P < .01 for every change in 1 mm Hg), higher body mass index (aOR 1.04 [1.01-1.09] P = .01 for an increase in 1), increased patient age (aOR 1.31 [1.30-1.37] P < .01 for every 10 years), and radial arterial line location (aOR 1.74 [1.16-2.47] P = .04). Conclusions: There was broad agreement between IABP and NIBP in critically ill patients over a range of BPs and severity of illness. Several variables are associated with measurement discrepancy; however, their predictive capacity is modest. This may guide future study into which patients may specifically benefit from an arterial catheter.

Use of tissue adhesive for neonatal intravenous access devices: A scoping review.

Neonates often require vascular access devices for medication or fluid therapy, but a third of devices fail before treatment completion or end with a complication. For adults and children, securing these devices with tissue adhesive (TA) increases the dwell and reduces complications. However, there is a lack of evidence for the neonatal population. This scoping review aimed to assess the evidence of TA for vascular access devices in neonates. The Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) framework was used. The inclusion criteria covered studies published from 2007 (when TA was first reported for use in vascular access devices) to June 2024, available in English, Portuguese, and Spanish, across six databases. Two independent reviewers assessed the studies using Covidence software, with a third reviewer resolving conflicts. Quality assessment was performed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. From 981 identified studies, 12 were included. Most studies (n = 5, 41.7%) enrolled between 100 and 500 neonates with vascular access devices. Publications originated from four regions and were observational studies (n = 6, 50%), quasi-experimental (n = 3, 25%), and case series (n = 2, 16.7%) with one randomized controlled trial (8.3%) focusing on umbilical venous catheters (UVC). The most common TA composition used was a combination of n-butyl- and 2-octyl- cyanoacrylate (n = 4, 33.3%). The amount of TA applied varied across studies, and often TA was part of a bundle (n = 7, 58.3%). Most studies applied TA to central venous access devices (n = 10, 83.3%) and 2 (16.7%) in peripheral devices. Although there was variation in device failure, the studies generally indicated a reduction in complications such as dislodgment (central catheter: 11.3% [peripherally inserted central catheter {PICC}] to 24.6% [UVC] in non-TA group vs 0.7% [PICC] to 7.7% [UVC] in TA group), device-associated bloodstream infections (central: 7.7% [UVC] and incidence of 2.76/1000 catheter days [PICC] in non-TA group vs 3.1% [UVC] and incidence of 0.99/1000 catheter day [PICC] in TA group), and phlebitis (13% in non-TA group vs 3% in TA-group), as well as increased dwell time in peripheral catheters. Most studies included both term and preterm neonates but did not differentiate between them in their analyses. Skin assessment, life of first dressing, and follow-up of catheters and patients were not reported in most studies. CONCLUSION: TA may reduce complications in vascular access devices, but the evidence in neonates is limited and varied. Many studies include TA as part of bundle, making it difficult to isolate its effects. Additionally, the current evidence lacks robustness due to the design limitations of the studies. Future research should focus on randomized controlled trials to evaluate TA's effectiveness and safety in preventing device failures and complications in neonates, considering different subgroups, to ensure the safety of TA in these nuanced populations. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Research in adults and pediatrics provides evidence supporting the use of tissue adhesive (TA) for vascular access devices, showing a positive impact in reducing failures and complications. • The use of TA in neonates needs to be carefully considered due to their unique characteristics. WHAT IS NEW: • There is a gap in the literature on the use of TA for securing vascular access devices in neonates, particularly regarding its safety and effectiveness in preventing failures and complications. • Further studies are needed to provide robust evidence verifying the effectiveness and safety of TA in this population.

Catheter-related bloodstream infection caused by Lacticaseibacillus paracasei: A case report and literature review.

Catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) caused by Lactobacillus spp. and Lacticaseibacillus spp. are rare, and their clinical course and optimal treatment remain uncertain. In this report, we present a 46-year-old male patient who experienced clinically diagnosed Lacticaseibacillus paracasei CRBSI on four separate occasions, despite receiving systemic administration of antibiotics and antimicrobial lock therapy. The patient did not develop L. paracasei bacteremia after catheter removal. This case report furthers our knowledge of CRBSI caused by Lactobacillus and related genera and highlights the need for further research.

Intracardiac vascular access in haemodialysis: A last resort for exhausted traditional access.

Depletion of veins for dialysis access is a challenging life threatening situation for patients in need of haemodialysis. The utilisation of intracardiac catheter is a rare procedure with scarce reported experience. We describe the case of a 68-year-old male that contributes to the limited knowledge of performing a life-saving intracardiac catheter placement for emergency haemodialysis in a patient without immediate alternative renal replacement therapy available. We also retrospectively analyse the experience reported so far and summarise complications and outcomes. In our case, the patient was able to pursue haemodialysis after intracardiac catheter placement without any complications. Two weeks later, the patient successfully received a kidney transplant from a deceased donor and has a serum creatinine of 1.7 mg/dL after 2 years of follow-up. There are only four reported cases of kidney transplantation after the procedure, including our own. Intracardiac catheter is an emerging option that could be considered in certain patients as the last resort. Further investigation with regards to patient candidacy and procedure security are necessary.

Determinants of the optimal selection of vascular access devices: A systematic review underpinned by the COM-B behavioural model.

BACKGROUND: Optimal selection of vascular access devices is based on multiple factors and is the first strategy to reduce vascular access device-related complications. This process is dependent on behavioural and human factors. The COM-B (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour) model was used as a theoretical framework to organize the findings of this systematic review. METHODS/AIMS: To synthesize the evidence on determinants shaping the optimal selection of vascular access devices, using the COM-B behavioural model as the theoretical framework. DESIGN: Systematic review of studies which explore decision-making at the time of selecting vascular access devices. DATA SOURCES: The Medline, Web of Science, Scopus and EbscoHost databases were interrogated to extract manuscripts published up to 31 December 2021, in English or Spanish. RESULTS: Among 16 studies included in the review, 8/16 (50%) focused on physical capability, 8/16 (50%) psychological capability, 15/16 (94%) physical opportunity, 12/16 (75%) social opportunity, 1/16 (6%) reflective motivation and 0/16 (0%) automatic motivation. This distribution represents a large gap in terms of interpersonal and motivational influences and cultural and social environments. Specialist teams (teams created for the insertion or maintenance of vascular access devices) are core for the optimal selection of vascular access devices (75% physical capability, 62% psychological capability, 80% physical opportunity and 100% social opportunity). CONCLUSION: Specialist teams predominantly lead all actions undertaken towards the optimal selection of vascular access devices. These actions primarily centre on assessing opportunity and capability, often overlooking motivational influences and social environments. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: A more implementation-focused professional approach could decrease inequity among patients and complications associated with vascular access devices. IMPACT: Optimal selection of vascular access devices is the primary strategy in mitigating complications associated with these devices. There is a significant disparity between interpersonal and motivational influences and the cultural and social environments. Furthermore, specialized teams play a pivotal role in facilitating the optimal selection of vascular access devices. The study can benefit institutions concerned about vascular access devices and their complications. REPORTING METHOD: This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No Patient or Public Contribution. WHAT DOES THIS ARTICLE CONTRIBUTE TO THE WIDER GLOBAL CLINICAL COMMUNITY?: Optimal selection of vascular devices remains a growing yet unresolved issue with costly clinical and patient experience impact. Interventions to improve the optimal selection of vascular devices have focused on training, education, algorithms and implementation of specialist vascular teams; alas, these approaches do not seem to have substantially addressed the problem. Specialist vascular teams should evolve and pivot towards leading the implementation of quality improvement interventions, optimizing resource use and enhancing their role.

Impact of the I-DECIDED Tool to Improve Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Care in Paediatrics: Interrupted Time-Series Study.

AIM: To determine whether the I-DECIDED assessment and decision tool enhances peripheral intravenous catheter assessment, care and decision-making in paediatrics. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental, interrupted time-series study. METHODS: An interrupted time-series study was conducted in a paediatric inpatient unit at a public teaching hospital in Brazil. The participants were patients aged less than 15 years old with a peripheral intravenous catheter, and their parents or guardians. Data were collected between January and July 2023, encompassing six time points, three pre-intervention and three post-intervention. Evaluation data were based on the I-DECIDED tool, including idle devices, dressings, complications, patient/family awareness, hand hygiene, disinfection and documentation. RESULTS: We conducted 585 peripheral intravenous catheter observations, with 289 in the pre-intervention phase and 296 in the post-intervention phase, inserted in 65 hospitalised children, 30 in the pre-intervention phase and 35 in the post-intervention phase. After the intervention, reductions were observed in the number of idle catheters, substandard dressings and complications. Patients and family members reported an increase in device assessment, hand hygiene and peripheral intravenous catheter disinfection. Additionally, there was an increase in documentation of decision-making performed by nurses and nursing technicians/assistants. CONCLUSION: Implementation of the I-DECIDED assessment and decision tool in a paediatric unit significantly improved the assessment, care and decision-making regarding peripheral intravenous catheters. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Opportunity to enhance practice standards, elevate the quality of care provided to paediatric patients, contribute to improved patient outcomes, advance evidence-based practice in vascular access management and enhance patient experience through increased involvement in care. IMPACT: To influence clinical practice and healthcare policies aimed at improving peripheral intravenous catheter care and patient safety in paediatric settings. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution to the design of this study.

PiccPed® app impact on nurses' knowledge to prevent adverse events for peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) in pediatric and neonatal healthcare: A quasi-experimental study.

BACKGROUND: The PiccPed® health application was developed to support clinical decision-making in peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) management. We aimed to evaluate its impact on nurses' knowledge regarding the prevention of PICC-associated adverse events in pediatrics and neonatology. METHODS: A quasi-experimental, pre-post intervention study, was conducted with a dependent/paired sample of pediatric and neonatal nurses from two tertiary hospitals in South Brazil. Data were collected from October 2022 to January 2023 across three phases: pre-, intervention (use of the PiccPed®) and post-test. Study outcomes were a knowledge test (15 questions) of evidence-based PICC maintenance procedures, and PiccPed® app time spent and screens used. RESULTS: A total of 56 nurses completed the study. The post-test mean score was significantly higher (12/15; standard deviation (SD) 1.9) in comparison with the pre-test (mean 9/15; SD 2.2). The change in scores was significantly higher for nurses without postgraduate qualifications, in comparison to those with (Mean Difference 1.26; p = 0.039). Each minute using the app resulted in a significant increase of 0.04 points (95% confidence interval 0.01-0.08; p = 0.014) on the mean post-test score (10.94 points). CONCLUSION: The research demonstrated that PiccPed® enhances nurses' learning regarding the prevention of adverse events associated with PICC maintenance in pediatrics and neonatology. APPLICATION TO PRACTICE: The app can be safely and effectively used for training and continuing education of nurses who care for children and neonates with PICCs.

Care bundles and peripheral arterial catheters.

HIGHLIGHTS: What we know about the topic: Recommendations for the use of vascular access care bundles to reduce infection are followed for different devices. The risk of arterial catheter-related infection is comparable with short-term, non-cuffed central venous catheters. There are practice concerns for clinicians inserting and caring for peripheral arterial catheters. What this paper adds: The selected studies had a theme of decreased infection after using bundled strategies for all devices. Few studies addressed use of bundles for care of peripheral arterial catheters. High-quality research should be performed about using care bundles for insertion and care of arterial catheters. INTRODUCTION: A scoping review of the literature was performed. AIMS/OBJECTIVES: To find information on the use of care bundles for care of arterial, central, and peripherally inserted venous catheters. METHODS: Data was extracted by 2 independent researchers using standardized methodology. RESULTS: Results of 84 studies included 2 (2.4%) randomized controlled trials, 38 (45.2%) observational studies, 29 (34.5%) quality projects, and 15 (17.9%) reviews. Populations had more adults than pediatric patients. All studies had the most prominent theme of decreased infection in all devices after using bundle strategies. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The mapping of available evidence strongly supports the use of care bundles to reduce infection in the care of all intravascular devices. However, deficiencies regarding practice concerns about insertion and care of arterial catheters highlight areas for future research with the aim to eliminate the gap in the evidence of studies of care bundles for peripheral arterial catheters.

Randomised controlled trials in vascular access devices in emergency departments: a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: The significance of vascular access devices for patients in the emergency department (ED) is undeniable. When it comes to evaluating the effectiveness of interventions, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) stand out as the most reliable sources of evidence compared with other study designs. AIM: To explore and synthesise the findings from RCTs related to vascular access devices in the ED setting. METHODS: A systematic search will be conducted in electronic medical databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Pubmed, CINAHL and Embase databases. All RCTs focusing on peripheral intravenous catheters, central venous catheters and intraosseous catheters, published in English and Chinese in peer-reviewed journals within the past decade, will be included. CONCLUSION: This scoping review will summarise the current state of evidence for vascular access devices in the ED setting. This will identify gaps in the literature and, in turn, assist clinicians and researchers in pinpointing areas for future exploration and provide a valuable guide for future research.

The neonatal DAV-expert algorithm: a GAVeCeLT/GAVePed consensus for the choice of the most appropriate venous access in newborns.

In most NICUs, the choice of the venous access device currently relies upon the operator's experience and preferences. However, considering the high failure rate of vascular devices in the neonatal population, such clinical choice has a critical relevance and should preferably be based on the best available evidence. Though some algorithms have been published over the last 5 years, none of them seems in line with the current scientific evidence. Thus, the GAVePed-which is the pediatric interest group of the most important Italian group on venous access, GAVeCeLT-has developed a national consensus about the choice of the venous access device in the neonatal population. After a systematic review of the available evidence, the panel of the consensus (which included Italian neonatologists specifically experts in this area) has provided structured recommendations answering four sets of questions regarding (1) umbilical venous catheters, (2) peripheral cannulas, (3) epicutaneo-cava catheters, and (4) ultrasound-guided centrally and femorally inserted central catheters. Only statements reaching a complete agreement were included in the final recommendations. All recommendations were also structured as a simple visual algorithm, so as to be easily translated into clinical practice.  Conclusion: The goal of the present consensus is to offer a systematic set of recommendations on the choice of the most appropriate vascular access device in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.

Improving difficult peripheral intravenous access requires thought, training and technology (DART3): a stepped-wedge, cluster randomised controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are the most used invasive medical device in healthcare. Yet around half of insertion attempts are unsuccessful leading to delayed medical treatments and patient discomfort of harm. Ultrasound-guided PIVC (USGPIVC) insertion is an evidence-based intervention shown to improve insertion success especially in patients with Difficult IntraVenous Access (BMC Health Serv Res 22:220, 2022), however the implementation in some healthcare settings remains suboptimal. This study aims to co-design interventions that optimise ultrasound guided PIVC insertion in patients with DIVA, implement and evaluate these initiatives and develop scale up activities. METHODS: A stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial will be conducted in three hospitals (two adult, one paediatric) in Queensland, Australia. The intervention will be rolled out across 12 distinct clusters (four per hospital). Intervention development will be guided by Michie's Behavior Change Wheel with the aim to increase local staff capability, opportunity, and motivation for appropriate, sustainable adoption of USGPIVC insertion. Eligible clusters include all wards or departments where > 10 PIVCs/week are typically inserted. All clusters will commence in the control (baseline) phase, then, one cluster per hospital will step up every two months, as feasible, to the implementation phase, where the intervention will be rolled out. Implementation strategies are tailored for each hospital by local investigators and advisory groups, through context assessments, staff surveys, and stakeholder interviews and informed by extensive consumer interviews and consultation. Outcome measures align with the RE-AIM framework including clinical-effectiveness outcomes (e.g., first-time PIVC insertion success for DIVA patients [primary outcome], number of insertion attempts); implementation outcomes (e.g., intervention fidelity, readiness assessment) and cost effectiveness outcomes. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research framework will be used to report the intervention as it was implemented; how people participated in and responded to the intervention; contextual influences and how the theory underpinning the intervention was realised and delivered at each site. A sustainability assessment will be undertaken at three- and six-months post intervention. DISCUSSION: Study findings will help define systematic solutions to implement DIVA identification and escalation tools aiming to address consumer dissatisfaction with current PIVC insertion practices. Such actionable knowledge is critical for implementation of scale-up activities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered (Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry; ACTRN12621001497897).

Assessing the utility of ultrasound-guided vascular access placement with longer catheters in critically ill pediatric patients.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill pediatric patients can have difficulty with establishing and maintaining stable vascular access. A long-dwelling peripheral intravenous catheter placement decreases the need for additional vascular interventions. AIM: The study sought to compare longevity, catheter-associated complications, and the need for additional vascular interventions when using ultrasound-guided longer peripheral intravenous catheters comparing to a traditional approach using standard-sized peripheral intravenous catheters in pediatric critically ill patients with difficult vascular access. METHODS: This single-center retrospective cohort study included children 0-18 years of age with difficult vascular access admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit between 01/01/2018-06/01/2021. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty seven placements were included in the study, with 99 ultrasound-guided long intravenous catheters placed and 88 traditionally placed standard-sized intravenous catheters. In the univariate analysis, patients in the traditional approach were at a higher risk of intravenous failure compared to those in the ultrasound-guided approach (HR = 2.20, 95% CI [1.45-3.34], p = .001), with median intravenous survival times of 108 and 219 h, respectively. Adjusting for age, patients in the traditional approach remained at higher risk of intravenous failure (HR = 1.99, 95% CI: [1.28-3.08], p = .002). Adjusting for hospital length of stay, patients in the ultrasound-guided approach were less likely to have additional peripheral intravenous access placed during hospitalization (OR = 0.39, 95% CI [0.18-0.85] p = .017). CONCLUSION: In critically ill pediatric patients with difficult vascular access, ultrasound-guided long peripheral intravenous catheters provide an alternative to traditional approach standard-sized intravenous catheters with improved longevity, lower failure rates, and reduced need for additional vascular interventions.

Application of wireless energy transmission technology into central venous ports with light-emitting diodes.

Implantable central venous (CV) ports are widely used for chemotherapy and parenteral nutrition. Generally, CV ports are used safely; however, some patients suffer from drug leakage around the port septum due to mispuncture. Therefore, we developed a CV port that is visible under the skin. We created a prototype of a CV port using a 3D printer. Three red light-emitting diodes (LEDs) were attached around the septum that made the puncture site visible by applying wireless energy transmission technology using electromagnetic resonance. The CV port was implanted under the skin of pork rose meat. The thickness of the skin of pork loin was measured. Fifteen medical doctors participated in the study to visually confirm the lighted CV port. The visibility of the center of the septum with and without lights was scored 0 as non-diagnostic; 1, slightly visible; 2, well visible; and 3, obviously visible. The visibility with or without lights was assessed. The relationship between the years of experience and the visibility score was assessed. The Wilcoxon test was used for statistical analysis. LEDs were easily transmitted through the skin of pork rose meat. The median visibility scores with or without lights were 2 (range, 1-3) and 3 (range, 1-3), respectively (p = 0.005). No significant relationship was found between experience and visibility score (p = 0.289). CV ports with LEDs can be easily recognized compared with those without LEDs. This technique may contribute to medical safety by improving its visibility to avoid mispuncture.

Evaluation of the difficult intravenous access (DIVA) scoring in hospitalized pediatric patients.

HIGHLIGHTS: The DIVA scoring tool has previously been validated in the pediatric ED setting. Our project applied DIVA to an inpatient pediatric sample. DIVA may not predict likelihood of PIV success in the inpatient setting.Background: First-attempt success rate for placing pediatric peripheral intravenous (PIV) catheters ranges from to 24% to 52%. Multiple attempts can increase risk of deleterious outcomes. It is essential to screen pediatric patients appropriately to identify those who will require additional resources for successful PIV placement. Methods: A convenience sample of hospitalized pediatric patients 0 to 18 years of age on a general care unit was used in this performance improvement project. Prior to attempting PIV access, nurses completed a data collection tool that included elements of established difficult intravenous access (DIVA) tools as well as first attempt successful PIV placement. The primary outcome measure was to determine if each DIVA scoring tool is accurate in predicting the need for additional resources to achieve successful first-attempt PIV placement. The secondary outcome measure was to compare the predictive value of each DIVA scoring tool among an inpatient pediatric population. Following data exploration and cleaning, a correlation analysis was performed with logistic regression to assess DIVA score effectiveness in predicting success of PIV insertion on the first attempt. Results: Out of 133 children, 167 PIV attempts were analyzed with 150 PIV attempts included in the final data analysis. Of the 150 PIV attempts analyzed, 60% (n=90) were successful on the first attempt. Performance of prediction for first-time insertion success was comparable among all 4 DIVA scoring tools. Conclusions: None of the 4 DIVA scoring tools were superior in predicting first-time PIV placement among hospitalized children. Vein palpability was more predictive, although not statistically significant.

Integrated versus non-integrated peripheral intravenous catheters: a cross-sectional survey of nurse experiences.

BACKGROUND: Integrated peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) demonstrate clinical efficacy, however, device complexity and design differences may be a potential barrier to implementation. AIMS: To assess nurse acceptability of integrated PIVC systems. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was nested within a multicentre randomised controlled trial. One hundred nurses caring for patients with integrated and non-integrated PIVCs completed a 17-item survey about key differences between devices (eg function and appearance, perceived patient comfort and skin injuries). FINDINGS: Most nurses reported the integrated PIVC wings prevented device movement (80%), achieved patient comfort in areas of flexion (78%), and no patients developed skin injuries (100%). Nurses rated the ease of accessing and overall confidence using the integrated PIVC as significantly higher than the non-integrated design (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: The integrated PIVC received positive feedback from nurses and had few barriers to implementation.

Preventing Risks of Infections and Medication Errors in IV therapy (PRIME): a patient safety initiative.

BACKGROUND: Two major avoidable reasons for adverse events in hospital are medication errors and intravenous therapy-induced infections or complications. Training for clinical staff and compliance to patient safety principles could address these. METHODS: Joint Commission International (JCI) consultants created a standardised, 6-month training programme for clinical staff in hospitals. Twenty-one tertiary care hospitals from across south-east Asia took part. JCI trained the clinical consultants, who trained hospital safety champions, who trained nursing staff. Compliance and knowledge were assessed, and monthly audits were conducted. RESULTS: There was an overall increase of 29% in compliance with parameters around medication preparation and vascular access device management. CONCLUSION: The programme improved safe practice around preparing medications management and managing vascular access devices. The approach could be employed as a continuous quality improvement initiative for the prevention of medication errors and infusion-associated complications.

Complications of central venous catheterization at a vascular surgery service in a teaching hospital: a prospective cohort study.

Background: Central venous catheters are essential for management of hospitalized patients, but their insertion is subject to complications that can make them unusable and/or cause patient morbidity. There are few data on the incidence of these complications and the variables associated with these outcomes in Brazil. Objectives: To determine the incidence of mechanical complications and failures of short stay central venous catheters fitted by the vascular surgery service at a teaching hospital and identify variables associated with their occurrence. Methods: This was a prospective cohort of 73 attempts to fit patients with a central venous catheter performed by the vascular surgery service at a teaching hospital from July to October of 2022. Results: Mechanical complications occurred in 12 cannulation attempts (16.44%) and there were 10 failures (13.70%). The factors associated with mechanical complications were less experienced operators (p < 0.001), less specialized operators (p = 0.014), a failed attempt prior to requesting help from the vascular surgery service (p = 0.008), and presence of at least two criteria for difficulty (p = 0.007). Conclusions: The local incidence of mechanical complications and central venous cannulation failures was similar to rates described in the international literature, but higher than rates in other Brazilian studies. The results suggest that the degree of experience of the person fitting the catheter, history of a failed prior attempt, and presence of at least two criteria for difficulty identified before the procedure were associated with worse outcomes.

The role of routine chest radiography after implantable venous access port catheter insertion under the guide of ultrasonography and fluoroscopy.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is the evaluation of routine chest radiography following the placement of Implantable venous access port catheter (IVAPC) central lines using combined ultrasound and fluoroscopic guidance by a vascular surgeon in the operating room. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A prospective study of 189 consecutive patients who underwent IVAPC central line insertion in the vascular surgery operating room from 2016 to 2019. Venipuncture was performed with an 18-gauge needle under the guidance of sonography in each case, and the access site was noted. The line position was confirmed by fluoroscopy following the procedure. Multiple tries for puncture and patients under 18 were excluded from our study. Routine radiography of chest was performed for all patients and pneumothorax, hemothorax, and catheter malposition were evaluated in each case. RESULTS: There were 2 cases of asymptomatic pneumothorax, no cases of hemothorax, and all catheter tip positions were optimal or acceptable. The annual cost of chest radiography was 33,000,000IRR, 220 h of hospital and staff time, and 1.1 mSv radiation. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, when imaging guidance is used for IVAPC insertion by an experienced surgeon in a high-volume center, performing post-procedure routine chest radiography shows little benefit.

Patterns of vascular access device use and thrombosis outcomes in patients with COVID-19: a pilot multi-site study of Michigan hospitals.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is an important complication of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To date, few studies have described vascular access device use and VTE risk in this cohort. To examine the use of vascular access devices and incidence of VTE in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. We performed a retrospective, multi-center cohort study of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who received a midline catheter, peripherally inserted central catheter (PICCs), tunneled or non-tunneled central venous catheter (CVC), hemodialysis (HD) catheter or a port during hospitalization. Mixed-effects multivariable logit models adjusting for VTE risk factors in the Caprini risk score were fit to understand the incremental risk of VTE in patients with vascular access devices vs. those that did not receive devices. Management of VTE was determined by examining anticoagulant use pre- vs. post-thrombosis. Results were expressed using odds ratios (ORs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). A total of 1228 hospitalized COVID-19 patients in 40 hospitals, of which 261 (21.3%) received at least one vascular access device of interest, were included. The prevalence of acute, non-tunneled CVCs was 42.2%, acute HD catheters 18.4%, midline catheters 15.6%, PICCs 15.6%, tunneled CVCs 6.8%, and implanted ports 1.4%. The prevalence of VTE was 6.0% in the study cohort, and 10.0% among patients with vascular access devices. After adjusting for known VTE risk factors, patients that had a vascular access device placed were observed to have a four-fold greater odds of VTE than those that did not (OR 4.17, 95% CI 2.33-7.46). Patients who received multiple different catheters experienced more VTE events compared with patients that received only one type (21.5% vs. 6.1%, p < .001). Among the 26 patients with VTE, only 8 (30.8%) survived to discharge and among these, only 5 were discharged on therapeutic doses of anticoagulation. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 that receive vascular access devices experienced higher rates of VTE than those that do not. Future studies to evaluate the nexus between COVID-19, vascular device use, and thrombosis appear are warranted.

"I have such a hard time hitting myself, I thought it'd be easier": perspectives of hospitalized patients on injecting drugs into vascular access devices.

BACKGROUND: Hospital patients who use drugs may require prolonged parenteral antimicrobial therapy administered through a vascular access device (VAD). Clinicians' concerns that patients may inject drugs into these devices are well documented. However, the perspectives of patients on VAD injecting are not well described, hindering the development of informed clinical guidance. This study was conducted to elicit inpatient perspectives on the practice of injecting drugs into VADs and to propose strategies to reduce associated harms. METHODS: Researchers conducted a focused ethnography and completed semi-structured interviews with 25 inpatients at a large tertiary hospital in Western Canada that experiences a high rate of drug-related presentations annually. RESULTS: A few participants reported injecting into their VAD at least once, and nearly all had heard of the practice. The primary reason for injecting into a VAD was easier venous access since many participants had experienced significant vein damage from injection drug use. Several participants recognized the risks associated with injecting into VADs, and either refrained from the practice or took steps to maintain their devices while using them to inject drugs. Others were uncertain how the devices functioned and were unaware of potential harms. CONCLUSIONS: VADs are important for facilitating completion of parenteral antimicrobial therapy and for other medically necessary care. Prematurely discharging patients who inject into their VAD from hospital, or discontinuing or modifying therapy, results in inequitable access to health care for a structurally vulnerable patient population. Our findings demonstrate a need for healthcare provider education and non-stigmatizing clinical interventions to reduce potential harms associated with VAD injecting. Those interventions could include providing access to specialized pain and withdrawal management, opioid agonist treatment, and harm reduction services, including safer drug use education to reduce or prevent complications from injecting drugs into VADs.