An Improvised Cost-Effective Repair Technique for Management of Broken Luer Connections of Tunneled Dialysis Catheter and Salvage Existing Catheter.

Mechanical problems like break or crack in Luer connectors or hubs, clamps, and tubings are common non-infectious complications of tunneled dialysis catheters (TDC), which may lead to other TDC complications and the need to insert a new catheter. These can be tackled using TDC repair kits or spare parts, which are often not available, resulting in the insertion of a new TDC that increases morbidity, TDC-related procedures, and healthcare costs. We discuss two cases of broken Luer connections of TDC, which were managed by exchanging the broken Luer connector of TDC with the similar Luer connector of a temporary dialysis catheter. Both the repaired TDCs are thereafter functioning well. This improvised technique provides an easy, effective, long-lasting option that salvages the existing TDC and reduces the cost factor.

Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Versus Centrally Inserted Central Catheter for In-Hospital Infusion Therapy: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) compared with centrally inserted central catheters (CICCs). METHODS: Prospective cohort study was followed by an economic analysis over a 30-day time horizon. Propensity score matching was used to select hospitalized adults with similar indications for PICC or CICC. The composite outcome was device removal or replacement because of complications before the end of treatment. The economic evaluation was based on a decision tree model for cost-effectiveness analysis, with calculation of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per catheter removal avoided. All costs are presented in Brazilian reais (BRL) (1 BRL = 0.1870 US dollar). RESULTS: A total of 217 patients were followed in each group; 172 (79.3%) of those receiving a PICC and 135 (62.2%) of those receiving a CICC had no device-related complication, respectively. When comparing the events leading to device removal, the risk of composite endpoint was significantly higher in the CICC group (hazard ratio 0.20; 95% CI 0.11-0.35). The cost of PICC placement was BRL 1290.98 versus BRL 467.16 for a CICC. In the base case, the ICER for placing a PICC instead of a CICC was BRL 3349.91 per removal or replacement avoided. On univariate sensitivity analyses, the model proved to be robust within an ICER range of 2500.00 to 4800.00 BRL. CONCLUSIONS: PICC placement was associated with a lower risk of complications than CICC placement. Although the cost of a PICC is higher, its use avoided complications and need for catheter replacement before the end of treatment.

Risk factors assessment for radiographically guided port implantations with forearm access.

INTRODUCTION: Port implantations at the forearm are associated with an increased risk of relevant vein thrombosis. Therefore, with this study we sought to identify the responsible risk factors to improve technical quality of the method. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of 313 patients with port implantation at the forearm in 2019. Then, exploratory statistics were conducted comprising Cox-Regression and Kaplan-Meier-Analyses. RESULTS: Mean age was 60 ± 14 years. 232 (74%) of the patients were female. No early infection was observed. 29 late infections and 57 cases of thrombosis occurred. In only 9% of the patients with thrombosis hospital admission was necessary for treatment. Median interval to the diagnosis of thrombosis was 23 days; inter-quartile-range: 16-75. Mean interval to elective port explantation was 227 ± 128 days. There was no effect of occurrence of thrombosis of the interventionalist, the assistance nor of several technical aspects. However, there was a significantly lower risk of thrombosis for primary implanted port system compared to replacement ports, Hazard-ratio: 0.34 [Confidence interval: 0.172, 0.674], p = 0.002. Age was a significant risk factor for late infections, Hazard-ratio: 3.35 [Confidence interval:1.84, 6.07], p < 0.0001. CONCLUSION: The main risk factor for adverse outcome after radiographically guided port implantation at the forearm is the type of the implanted port system. The reason for that might not be the material itself but the experience of a team with a certain port system. Age is a risk factor for late complications.

Effect of infusion set replacement intervals on catheter-related bloodstream infections (RSVP): a randomised, controlled, equivalence (central venous access device)-non-inferiority (peripheral arterial catheter) trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of infusion set use to prevent life-threatening catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) is unclear. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and costs of 7-day (intervention) versus 4-day (control) infusion set replacement to prevent CRBSI in patients with central venous access devices (tunnelled cuffed, non-tunnelled, peripherally inserted, and totally implanted) and peripheral arterial catheters. METHODS: We did a randomised, controlled, assessor-masked trial at ten Australian hospitals. Our hypothesis was CRBSI equivalence for central venous access devices and non-inferiority for peripheral arterial catheters (both 2% margin). Adults and children with expected greater than 24 h central venous access device-peripheral arterial catheter use were randomly assigned (1:1; stratified by hospital, catheter type, and intensive care unit or ward) by a centralised, web-based service (concealed before allocation) to infusion set replacement every 7 days, or 4 days. This included crystalloids, non-lipid parenteral nutrition, and medication infusions. Patients and clinicians were not masked, but the primary outcome (CRBSI) was adjudicated by masked infectious diseases physicians. The analysis was modified intention to treat (mITT). This study is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12610000505000 and is complete. FINDINGS: Between May 30, 2011, and Dec, 9, 2016, from 6007 patients assessed, we assigned 2944 patients to 7-day (n=1463) or 4-day (n=1481) infusion set replacement, with 2941 in the mITT analysis. For central venous access devices, 20 (1·78%) of 1124 patients (7-day group) and 16 (1·46%) of 1097 patients (4-day group) had CRBSI (absolute risk difference [ARD] 0·32%, 95% CI -0·73 to 1·37). For peripheral arterial catheters, one (0·28%) of 357 patients in the 7-day group and none of 363 patients in the 4-day group had CRBSI (ARD 0·28%, -0·27% to 0·83%). There were no treatment-related adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Infusion set use can be safely extended to 7 days with resultant cost and workload reductions. FUNDING: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Repair of central venous access devices in intestinal failure patients is safe and cost-effective: A retrospective single centre cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with chronic intestinal failure (IF) require home parenteral nutrition (HPN). Central venous access is needed for prolonged use of PN, usually via a long term central venous access device (CVAD). Post insertion there may be mechanical complications with a CVAD such as catheter rupture or tear. Repair of damaged CVADs is possible to avoid risks associated with catheter replacement in patients with IF. However, catheter related blood stream infections (CRBSI) are a concern when CVAD's are accessed or manipulated. AIMS: To investigate the success of repair of CVADs in patients with IF on HPN, related to repair longevity and incidence of CRBSI following repair. METHOD: Nutrition team records of CVAD repairs carried out in patients with IF were reviewed retrospectively for the period April 2015 to March 2019. RESULTS: Nutrition Clinical Nurse Specialists carried out 38 repairs in 27 patients. Male n = 5, female n = 22; mean age 55 years. Catheter longevity before first repair (n = 27): median 851 days, IQR 137-1484 days. 30/38 (78.9%) of repairs were successful lasting ≥30days. Hospital admission was avoided in 76% of cases. 4 patients in the failed repair group underwent catheter re-insertion where 4 had a further, subsequently successful, repair, an overall success rate of 89.4% (34/38). 30-day CRBSI rate was 0.09/1000 catheter days in repaired catheters. In comparing costs, there is a potential cost saving of 2766GBP for repair compared to replacement of damaged CVADs. CONCLUSION: Repair of tunnelled CVADs in patients with IF is successful and safe with no increased risk of CRBSI. Significant cost savings may be made.

Computational fluid dynamics of the right atrium: Assessment of modelling criteria for the evaluation of dialysis catheters.

Central venous catheters are widely used in haemodialysis therapy, having to respect design requirements for appropriate performance. These are placed within the right atrium (RA); however, there is no prior computational study assessing different catheter designs while mimicking their native environment. Here, a computational fluid dynamics model of the RA, based on realistic geometry and transient physiological boundary conditions, was developed and validated. Symmetric, split and step catheter designs were virtually placed in the RA and their performance was evaluated by: assessing their interaction with the RA haemodynamic environment through prediction of flow vorticity and wall shear stress (WSS) magnitudes (1); and quantifying recirculation and tip shear stress (2). Haemodynamic predictions from our RA model showed good agreement with the literature. Catheter placement in the RA increased average vorticity, which could indicate alterations of normal blood flow, and altered WSS magnitudes and distribution, which could indicate changes in tissue mechanical properties. All designs had recirculation and elevated shear stress values, which can induce platelet activation and subsequently thrombosis. The symmetric design, however, had the lowest associated values (best performance), while step design catheters working in reverse mode were associated with worsened performance. Different tip placements also impacted on catheter performance. Our findings suggest that using a realistically anatomical RA model to study catheter performance and interaction with the haemodynamic environment is crucial, and that care needs to be given to correct tip placement within the RA for improved recirculation percentages and diminished shear stress values.

Comparison between sedation room and operating room in central venous catheter positioning in children.

BACKGROUND: Placement of central venous access devices is a clinical procedure associated with some risk of adverse events and with a relevant cost. Careful choice of the device, appropriate insertion technique, and proper management of the device are well-known strategies commonly adopted to achieve an optimal clinical result. However, the environment where the procedure takes place may have an impact on the overall outcome in terms of safety and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective analysis on pediatric patients scheduled for a major neurosurgical operation, who required a central venous access device in the perioperative period. We divided the patients in two groups: in group A the central venous access device was inserted in the operating room, while in group B the central venous access device was inserted in the sedation room of our Pediatric Intensive Care Unit. We compared the two groups in terms of safety and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: We analyzed 47 central venous access devices in 42 children. There were no insertion-related complications. Only one catheter-related bloodstream infection was recorded, in group A. However, the costs related to central venous access device insertion were quite different: €330-€540 in group A versus €105-€135 in group B. CONCLUSION: In the pediatric patient candidate to a major neurosurgical operation, preoperative insertion of the central venous access device in the sedation room rather than in the operating room is less expensive and equally safe.

Optimizing Duration of Empiric Management of Suspected Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections in Pediatric Patients with Intestinal Failure.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether a 24-hour length of hospitalization and empiric antibiotic therapy to exclude central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) in children with intestinal failure is potentially as safe as 48 hours, which is the duration most commonly used but not evidence based. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective single-institution observational cohort study was conducted among pediatric patients with intestinal failure from July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2018, to identify episodes of suspected CLABSI. The primary end point was time from blood sampling to positive blood culture. Secondary end points included presenting symptoms, laboratory test results, responses to a parent/legal guardian-completed symptom survey, length of inpatient stay, costs, and charges. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients with intestinal failure receiving nutritional support via central venous catheters enrolled; 35 were hospitalized with suspected CLABSI at least once during the study. There were 49 positive blood cultures confirming CLABSI in 128 episodes (38%). The median time from blood sampling to positive culture was 11.1 hours. The probability of a blood culture becoming positive after 24 hours was 2.3%. Elevated C-reactive protein and neutrophil predominance in white blood cell count were associated with positive blood cultures. Estimated cost savings by transitioning from a 48-hour to a 24-hour admission to rule-out CLABSI was $4639 per admission. CONCLUSIONS: A 24-hour duration of empiric management to exclude CLABSI may be appropriate for patients with negative blood cultures and no clinically concerning signs. A multi-institutional study would more robustly differentiate patients safe for discharge after 24 hours from those who warrant longer empiric treatment.

Transdiaphragmatic tunneled Broviac catheters: Cost-effective perioperative central venous access in infants undergoing cardiac surgery.

OBJECTIVES: Infants undergoing congenital heart surgery require central venous lines which can be achieved by various combinations of transthoracic lines, percutaneous-indwelling central catheters and tunneled Broviac catheters. Transthoracic lines are removed by protocol prior to cardiac intensive care unit discharge (risk of bleeding), at which time percutaneous-indwelling central catheters are placed. Transdiaphragmatic tunneled Broviac catheters placed at the time of sternotomy, remain in place until hospital discharge, when they are safely removed at bedside. We characterized actual cost profiles associated with strategies that do versus do not include tunneled Broviac catheters. METHODS: From January 2014 to December 2016, we identified a study population of 220 consecutive patients under 1 year of age undergoing congenital heart surgery. Cost data were acquired from our electronic patient system interface database and office of finance. Our cohort was divided into 2 groups, tunneled Broviac catheter and nontunneled Broviac catheter. We calculated the total cost associated with each groups' central venous lines, propensity matched, and used the Mann-Whitney U test to analyze the results. RESULTS: Eighty-three (37.7%) of the 220 patients had tunneled Broviac catheters. The tunneled Broviac catheter group had 4 percutaneous-indwelling central catheter insertions and 6 radiological interventions while the nontunneled Broviac catheter group had 90 percutaneous-indwelling central catheters and 203 radiologic interventions. After propensity score matching, both groups were reduced to 82 patients and sum, median and interquartile range cost for tunneled Broviac catheters and nontunneled Broviac catheters was $17,351.84, $159.76 (128-159.76) versus $72,809.32, $1277.26 (31.76-1277.26), P < .02 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Tunneled Broviac catheters, placed routinely at cardiac surgery, incur lower costs than the conventional combination of transthoracic lines and percutaneous-indwelling central catheters. The cost-effectiveness is achieved by reducing the number of percutaneous-indwelling central catheters and associated radiologic interventions.

Central line bundle including split-septum device and single-use prefilled flushing syringes to prevent port-associated bloodstream infections: a cost and resource-utilization analysis.

BACKGROUND: Central line bundle programs were found to be effective in decreasing central line-associated bloodstream infection rates in pediatric cancer patients with ports. However, cost-effectiveness studies of central line bundle programs in pediatric cancer patients are limited, and most available data are from intensive care unit or adult studies. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study spanning 6 years, comprehensive assessment of total health care costs attributable to CLABSI's associated with ports between two periods. RESULTS: This cross-sectional study was carried out in the pediatric hematology-oncology ward of Dr. Behçet Uz Children's Hospital from 1 August November 2011 to 31 July 2017. The CLABSI rates decreased significantly from 8.31 CLABSIs to 3.04 per 1000 central line days (p < 0.001). In the pre-bundle period, total attributable costs spent for of patients with CLABSI were $130,661, and in the bundle period, total attributable costs spent for patients with CLABSI were $116,579. Within bundle implantation, 71 potential CLABSI were prevented, which saved an additional $208,977. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that central line bundles decreases not only the CLABSI rate but also decreases attributable costs due to CLABSI. Expenses spent for bundle elements, were covered by savings by preventing CLABSI with higher costs.

Reliability of cutaneous landmarks for the catheter length assessment during peripherally inserted central catheter insertion: A retrospective observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Peripherally inserted central catheters are very common devices for short, medium and long-term therapies. Their performance is strictly dependent on the correct tip location, at the junction between the upper caval vein and the right atrium. It is very important to obtain an estimated measure of the catheter, in order to reach the cavo-atrial junction and optimize the catheter length. Estimated measures are often obtained using cutaneous landmarks. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the reliability of cutaneous landmark-based length estimation during catheter insertion. Identify any patient's related factors that may affect cutaneous landmarks reliability. METHODS: We used two distinct techniques and collected data about cutaneous landmark-based length estimation, electrocardiographic guided intravascular length, age, weight and height. We studied the reliability of possible correcting factors, balancing the error average by regression models, and we found and tested two different models of prediction. RESULTS: A total number of 519 patients were studied. The average bias, between the two studied length assessment by cutaneous landmarks and electrocardiographic guided catheter length, were 3.77 ± 2.44 cm and 3.28 ± 2.57 cm, respectively. The analysed prediction models (deviance explained 43.5%, Akaike information criterion = 1313.67% and 43.4%, Akaike information criterion = 1313.92), fitted on the validation set, showed a root mean square error of 3.07 and 3.06. CONCLUSION: Landmark-based length estimation for preventive catheter length assessment seems to be unreliable, when associated with post-procedural tip location. They are useful for distal trimming catheters to optimize the 'out of skin' portion when associated with electrocardiographic tip location. Models identified for balancing bias are probably not useful.

Incidence, risk factors and healthcare costs of central line-associated nosocomial bloodstream infections in hematologic and oncologic patients.

Non-implanted central vascular catheters (CVC) are frequently required for therapy in hospitalized patients with hematological malignancies or solid tumors. However, CVCs may represent a source for bloodstream infections (central line-associated bloodstream infections, CLABSI) and, thus, may increase morbidity and mortality of these patients. A retrospective cohort study over 3 years was performed. Risk factors were determined and evaluated by a multivariable logistic regression analysis. Healthcare costs of CLABSI were analyzed in a matched case-control study. In total 610 patients got included with a CLABSI incidence of 10.6 cases per 1,000 CVC days. The use of more than one CVC per case, CVC insertion for conditioning for stem cell transplantation, acute myeloid leukemia, leukocytopenia (≤ 1000/µL), carbapenem therapy and pulmonary diseases were independent risk factors for CLABSI. Hospital costs directly attributed to the onset of CLABSI were 8,810 € per case. CLABSI had a significant impact on the overall healthcare costs. Knowledge about risk factors and infection control measures for CLABSI prevention is crucial for best clinical practice.

Economic evaluation of peripherally inserted central catheter and other venous access devices: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: With the widespread use of peripherally inserted central catheters, plenty of studies have compared peripherally inserted central catheters with other venous access devices to choose the most appropriate device in different clinical scenarios. Economic attributes are one of the important influencing factors in the selection of venous access devices. Several economic evaluation studies have been conducted in this area, but the evaluation methods, contents, outcomes, and quality of these economic studies have not been systematically evaluated. Therefore, we aimed to map the existing research on the economic evaluations of peripherally inserted central catheters and other venous access devices to provide economic evidence for decision-makers to choose a suitable venous access device. Second, we appraised the quality of economic evaluation studies in this area to highlight methodological weaknesses and provide an outline for the normative application of this methodology for future research. METHODS: A literature search was undertaken through 11 databases from inception until 11 March 2019, to identify economic evaluation studies comparing peripherally inserted central catheters with other venous access devices. After screening articles and extracting data independently, we summarized methods, contents, and outcomes of the included studies and appraised their methodological quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for economic evaluations. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies were included. Among the six studies comparing peripherally inserted central catheters with peripheral intravenous catheters, four studies performed a cost-effectiveness analysis and noted that peripherally inserted central catheters were more cost-effective than peripheral intravenous catheters. Two studies performed a cost analysis to compare peripherally inserted central catheters with peripheral intravenous catheters during the insertion and maintenance/removal periods but reached different conclusions. Seven of the included studies performed a cost analysis to compare peripherally inserted central catheters with central venous catheters. They pointed out that the catheter insertion costs of peripherally inserted central catheters were lower than those for central venous catheters in developed countries, whereas the opposite conclusion was reached in developing countries. Conversely, conclusions regarding the costs for catheter maintenance and catheter insertion and maintenance/removal were inconsistent. Six of the included studies performed a cost analysis to compare peripherally inserted central catheters with vascular access ports. They pointed out that the insertion costs of peripherally inserted central catheters were lower than those for vascular access ports, and the maintenance costs were higher than those for vascular access ports. Conversely, conclusions regarding the costs for catheter insertion and maintenance/removal were inconsistent. In addition, the methodological quality of the included studies had plenty of deficiencies, including no discounting, no sensitivity analysis, no incremental analysis, a lack of validity of costs and effectiveness, and so on. CONCLUSION: This scoping review highlighted the desperate paucity of economic evaluation studies of peripherally inserted central catheters and other venous access devices in amount, evaluation contents, and economic evaluation methods. The conclusions of the cost-effectiveness analysis of peripherally inserted central catheters with other venous access devices were consistent. Conversely, the conclusions of the cost analysis of peripherally inserted central catheters with other venous access devices were inconsistent mainly in the comparison of peripherally inserted central catheters with peripheral intravenous catheters, central venous catheters, and vascular access ports during the insertion and maintenance/removal periods. This review also highlighted many methodological issues of economic evaluations in this area. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct more high-quality economic evaluation studies on peripherally inserted central catheters and other venous access devices by performing cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, or cost-benefit analysis from catheter insertion to removal to provide evidence for clinical practitioners, patients, and decision-makers to choose a suitable venous access device in different clinical scenarios.

Intravascular catheter migration: A cross-sectional and health-economic comparison of adhesive and subcutaneous engineered stabilisation devices for intravascular device securement.

The Infusional Services Team at a large cancer centre in Belfast, Northern Ireland, performed a cross-sectional analysis of two catheter securement technologies to address an area of frequent, but underestimated concern - peripherally inserted central catheter migration and dislodgement. Healthcare practitioner and patient feedback, along with economic impact, were assessed. The costs associated with catheter replacement during the adhesive device group study period were calculated using an average cost per insertion, based on material costs required for the procedure. Other factors were the replacement cost of the adhesive engineered securement device with each dressing change. In the subcutaneous securement group, the material costs were adjusted for use of the subcutaneous device as it remained in situ for the duration of the catheters' dwell time. This review found that subcutaneous securement offers both patient and facilities a safe, effective and economical alternative for device securement with patients who are unable to tolerate or have successful securement with adhesive securement devices. The use of subcutaneous devices provided for reduced risks for peripherally inserted central catheters in terms of dislodgement, migration or malposition, alleviating the potential risks to develop catheter-related thrombosis and device-related infection.

Effect of tunneled and nontunneled peripherally inserted central catheter placement: A randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the effect of tunneled and nontunneled peripherally inserted central catheter placement under B-mode ultrasound. METHODS: A single center, randomized, controlled, nonblinded, prospective trial was conducted in Guangzhou, China, between July 2018 and May 2019. A total of 174 participants were randomized to the experimental group (tunneled peripherally inserted central catheter) or the control group (nontunneled peripherally inserted central catheter) and were followed until extubation. Basic characteristics, peripherally inserted central catheter characteristics, the incidence of complications, and the costs of peripherally inserted central catheter placement and maintenance were collected. Data were analyzed by intention-to-treat. RESULTS: A total of 168 of the participants had successful peripherally inserted central catheter placements (85/87, 97.7% in the experimental group and 83/87, 95.4% in the control group, P = 0.682). Compared to the control group, the experimental group had a lower incidence of complications during the placement (18.4% vs 32.2%, P = 0.036), a lower incidence of wound oozing (27.6% vs 57.5%, P < 0.001), a lower incidence of medical adhesive-related skin injury (9.2% vs 25.3%, P = 0.005), a lower incidence of venous thrombosis (1.1% vs 9.2%, P = 0.034), a lower incidence of catheter dislodgement (1.1% vs 9.2%, P = 0.034), and lower costs of peripherally inserted central catheter maintenance at 1, 2, and 3 months (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Tunneled peripherally inserted central catheter may be recommended for good effectiveness.

Picking the Right Tool for the Job: A Reliability Study of 4 Assessment Tools for Central Venous Catheter Insertion.

BACKGROUND: Determining procedural competence requires psychometrically sound assessment tools. A variety of instruments are available to determine procedural performance for central venous catheter (CVC) insertion, but it is not clear which ones should be used in the context of competency-based medical education. OBJECTIVE: We compared several commonly used instruments to determine which should be preferentially used to assess competence in CVC insertion. METHODS: Junior residents completing their first intensive care unit rotation between July 31, 2006, and March 9, 2007, were video-recorded performing CVC insertion on task trainer mannequins. Between June 1, 2016, and September 30, 2016, 3 experienced raters judged procedural competence on the historical video recordings of resident performance using 4 separate tools, including an itemized checklist, Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS), a critical error assessment tool, and the Ottawa Surgical Competency Operating Room Evaluation (O-SCORE). Generalizability theory (G-theory) was used to compare the performance characteristics among the tools. A decision study predicted the optimal testing environment using the tools. RESULTS: At the time of the original recording, 127 residents rotated through intensive care units at the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Seventy-seven of them (61%) met inclusion criteria, and 55 of those residents (71%) agreed to participate. Results from the generalizability study (G-study) demonstrated that scores from O-SCORE and OSATS were the most dependable. Dependability could be maintained for O-SCORE and OSATS with 2 raters. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that global rating scales, such as the OSATS or the O-SCORE tools, should be preferentially utilized for assessment of competence in CVC insertion.

Innovations in vascular access for hemodialysis.

Worldwide, hemodialysis remains the prevalent dialysis modality for more than 2 million patients who require well-functioning vascular access for this procedure. Creation of an arteriovenous fistula for long-term hemodialysis was the first innovation since the Scribner shunt and was followed by the development of an arteriovenous graft and catheter. Bioengineered vessels were developed during the last century, but this field has been energized by recent technology relating to the creation of human vessels. Novel endovascular techniques for creating an arteriovenous fistula may resolve some of the logistical issues involved in obtaining a timely arteriovenous fistula. Treatment of access stenosis, infection, and thrombosis has remained suboptimal, and innovative technologies are evolving. Many new approaches are now targeting the biological and mechanical aspects of vascular access, such as creation and maturation of arterial and venous anastomoses, development of a biological conduit for outflow, and negotiating the problems of central vein stenosis. Importantly, processes of access care that have long focused on arteriovenous fistulas are now recognizing the new paradigm, providing a complementary niche to arteriovenous grafts and dialysis catheters in the algorithm for individualized access placement. Cumulatively, to the credit of the multidisciplinary team approach, the long overdue focus on the very existential issue of vascular access for hemodialysis is being approached with newfound evidence-based enthusiasm as the vexing challenges related to regulations and reimbursement in hemodialysis persist. Patient choice and experience, often missed and ignored in the challenging management of an end-stage organ failure, need to stay central as we focus on patient-centered care of vascular access.

Clinical experience of a subcutaneously anchored sutureless system for securing central venous catheters.

This article reports the results of three prospective clinical studies conducted in a university hospital regarding the efficacy, safety and cost effectiveness of a subcutaneously anchored sutureless system for securing central venous catheters. The results were favourable to the adoption of such a device, and the analysis of the data allowed the authors to define those categories of patients where the device should have the most benefit: neonates, children, non-compliant older patients with cognitive difficulties, patients with skin abnormalities that may reduce the effectiveness of a skin-adhesive sutureless securement system, patients who are candidates for having a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) in place for more than 8 weeks, and any other category of patients with a recognised high risk of catheter dislodgement.

Placement of tunneled cuffed catheter for hemodialysis: Micropuncture kit versus Angiocath IV catheter.

INTRODUCTION: Tunneled cuffed catheters provide stable, instantaneous, long-term intravenous access for hemodialysis. Because catheterization is often performed in emergency situations, speed and accuracy are emphasized. METHODS: We retrospectively compared the Micropuncture kit with the standard 18-gauge Angiocath IV catheter for tunneled cuffed catheter insertion in the right jugular vein. From June 2016 to May 2017, 31 tunneled cuffed catheters were successfully inserted via the Micropuncture kit and another 31 via the Angiocath IV catheter. All patients underwent the same ultrasound-guided procedure performed by a single experienced interventionalist. Procedure time was the time from draping of the patient to the completion of povidone dressing after the catheterization. In our center, the Angio Lab nurse maintains records, including procedure time and method for every procedure. All patient records were retrospectively tracked through electronic medical record review. The primary outcome was procedure time and the secondary outcomes were complications and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the patients' demographic data between the two groups. However, procedure time was significantly shorter in the Angiocath group than in the Micropuncture group (12.4 ± 3.5 vs 17.6 ± 6.9 min, p = 0.001); there were no serious complications, such as hemorrhage, pneumothorax, or hematoma, in both groups. Moreover, cost-effectiveness was better in the Angiocath group than in the Micropuncture group (0.34 vs 52 US$, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Using the Angiocath IV catheter can reduce procedure time and cost with no severe complications. Moreover, experienced practitioners can reduce the risk of complications when using Angiocath. There are several limitations to this study. First, it was retrospective; second, it was not randomized; and finally, it was conducted by only one experienced interventionalist.