Managing central venous access during a health care crisis.

OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, central venous access line teams were implemented at many hospitals throughout the world to provide access for critically ill patients. The objective of this study was to describe the structure, practice patterns, and outcomes of these vascular access teams during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, self-reported study of central venous access line teams in hospitals afflicted with the COVID-19 pandemic. To participate in the study, hospitals were required to meet one of the following criteria: development of a formal plan for a central venous access line team during the pandemic; implementation of a central venous access line team during the pandemic; placement of central venous access by a designated practice group during the pandemic as part of routine clinical practice; or management of an iatrogenic complication related to central venous access in a patient with COVID-19. RESULTS: Participants from 60 hospitals in 13 countries contributed data to the study. Central venous line teams were most commonly composed of vascular surgery and general surgery attending physicians and trainees. Twenty sites had 2657 lines placed by their central venous access line team or designated practice group. During that time, there were 11 (0.4%) iatrogenic complications associated with central venous access procedures performed by the line team or group at those 20 sites. Triple lumen catheters, Cordis (Santa Clara, Calif) catheters, and nontunneled hemodialysis catheters were the most common types of central venous lines placed by the teams. Eight (14%) sites reported experience in placing central venous lines in prone, ventilated patients with COVID-19. A dedicated line cart was used by 35 (59%) of the hospitals. Less than 50% (24 [41%]) of the participating sites reported managing thrombosed central lines in COVID-19 patients. Twenty-three of the sites managed 48 iatrogenic complications in patients with COVID-19 (including complications caused by providers outside of the line team or designated practice group). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a dedicated central venous access line team during a pandemic or other health care crisis is a way by which physicians trained in central venous access can contribute their expertise to a stressed health care system. A line team composed of physicians with vascular skill sets provides relief to resource-constrained intensive care unit, ward, and emergency medicine teams with a low rate of iatrogenic complications relative to historical reports. We recommend that a plan for central venous access line team implementation be in place for future health care crises.

Higher Surgeon Procedure Volume Is Associated with Improved Hemodialysis Vascular Access Outcomes.

The objective of this study was to examine the association between surgeon characteristics, procedural volume, and short-term outcomes of hemodialysis vascular access. A retrospective cohort study was performed using Medicare Part A and B data from 2007 through 2014 merged with American Medical Association Physician Masterfile surgeon data. A total of 29,034 procedures met the inclusion criteria: 22,541 (78%) arteriovenous fistula (AVF) and 6,493 (22%) arteriovenous graft (AVG). Of these, 13,110 (45.2%) were performed by vascular surgeons, 9,398 (32.3%) by general surgeons, 2,313 (8%) by thoracic surgeons, 1,517 (5.2%) by other specialties, and 2,696 (9.3%) were unknown. Every 10-year increase in years in practice was associated with a 6.9 per cent decrease in the odds of creating AVF versus AVG (P = 0.02). Surgeon characteristics were not associated with the likelihood of vascular access failure. Every 10-procedure increase in cumulative procedure volume was associated with a 5 per cent decrease in the odds of vascular access failure (P = 0.007). There was no association of provider characteristics or procedure volume with survival free of repeat AVF/AVG or TC placement at 12 months. A significant portion of the variability in likelihood of creating AVF versus AVG is attributable to the provider-level variation. Increase in procedure volume is associated with decreased odds of vascular access failure.

Cryopreserved venous allograft is an acceptable conduit in patients with current or prior angioaccess graft infection.

OBJECTIVE: The durability of cryopreserved allograft has been previously demonstrated in the setting of infection. The objective of this study was to examine the safety, efficacy, patency, and cost per day of graft patency associated with using cryopreserved allograft (vein and artery) for hemodialysis access in patients with no autogenous tissue for native fistula creation and with arteriovenous graft infection or in patients at high risk for infection. METHODS: Patients implanted with cryopreserved allograft for hemodialysis access between January 2004 and January 2014 were reviewed using a standardized, multi-institutional database that evaluated demographic, comorbidity, procedural, and outcomes data. RESULTS: There were 457 patients who underwent placement of cryopreserved vein (femoral: n = 337, saphenous: n = 11) or artery (femoral: n = 109) for hemodialysis access at 20 hospitals. Primary indications for allograft use included high risk of infection in 191 patients (42%), history of infected prosthetic graft in 169 (37%), and current infection in 97 (21%). Grafts were placed more frequently in the arm (78%) than in the groin, with no difference in allograft conduit used. Mean time from placement to first hemodialysis use was 46 days (median, 34 days). Duration of functional graft use was 40 ± 7 months for cryopreserved vein and 21 ± 8 months for cryopreserved artery (P < .05), and mean number of procedures required to maintain patency at follow-up of 58 ± 21 months was 1.6 for artery and 0.9 for vein (P < .05). Local access complications occurred in 32% of patients and included late thrombosis (14%), graft stenosis (9%), late infection (9%), arteriovenous access malfunction (7%), early thrombosis (3%), and early infection (3%). Early and late infections both occurred more frequently in the groin (P = .030, P = .017, respectively), and late thrombosis occurred more frequently with cryopreserved artery (P < .001). Of the 82 patients (18%) in whom the cryopreserved allograft was placed in the same location as the excised infected prosthetic graft, 13 had infection of the allograft during the study period (early: n = 4; late: n = 9), with no significant difference in infection rate (P = .312) compared with the remainder of the study population. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year primary patency was 58%, 35%, and 17% for cryopreserved femoral vein and 49%, 17%, and 8% for artery, respectively (P < .001). Secondary patency at 1, 3, and 5 years was 90%, 78%, and 58% for cryopreserved femoral vein and 75%, 53%, and 42% for artery, respectively (P < .001). Mean allograft fee per day of graft patency was $4.78 for cryopreserved vein and $6.97 for artery (P < .05), excluding interventional costs to maintain patency. CONCLUSIONS: Cryopreserved allograft provides an excellent conduit for angioaccess when autogenous tissue is not available in patients with current or past conduit infection. Cryopreserved vein was associated with higher patency and a lower cost per day of graft patency. Cryopreserved allograft allows for immediate reconstruction through areas of infection, reduces the need for staged procedures, and allows early use for dialysis.