Incidence and risk factors for central venous access device failure in hospitalized adults: A multivariable analysis of 1892 catheters.

BACKGROUND: Central venous access devices (CVADs) allow intravenous therapy, haemodynamic monitoring and blood sampling but many fail before therapy completion. OBJECTIVE: To quantify CVAD failure and complications; and identify risk factors. DESIGNS, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Secondary analysis of multicentre randomised controlled trial including patients aged ≥16 years with a non-tunnelled CVAD (NTCVAD), peripherally-inserted central catheter (PICC) or tunnelled CVAD (TCVAD). Primary outcome was incidence of all-cause CVAD failure (central line-associated bloodstream infection [CLABSI], occlusion, accidental dislodgement, catheter fracture, thrombosis, pain). Secondary outcomes were CLABSI, occlusion and dislodgement. Cox regression was used to report time-to-event associations. RESULTS: In 1892 CVADs, all-cause failure occurred in 10.2% of devices: 49 NTCVADs (6.1%); 100 PICCs (13.2%); 44 TCVADs (13.4%). Failure rates for CLABSI, occlusion and dislodgement were 5.3%, 1.8%, and 1.7%, respectively. Independent CLABSI predictors were blood product administration through PICCs (hazard ratio (HR) 2.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24-5.55); and in TCVADs, one or two lumens, compared with three to four (HR 3.36, 95%CI 1.68-6.71), intravenous chemotherapy (HR 2.96, 95%CI 1.31-6.68), and diabetes (HR 3.25, 95%CI 1.40-7.57). Independent factors protective for CLABSI include antimicrobial NTCVADs (HR 0.23, 95%CI 0.08-0.63) and lipids in TCVADs (HR 0.32, 95%CI 0.14-0.72). NTCVADs inserted at another hospital (HR 7.06, 95%CI 1.48-33.7) and baseline infection in patients with PICCs (HR 2.72, 95%CI 1.08-6.83) were predictors for dislodgement. No independent occlusion predictors were found. Modifiable risk factors were identified for CVAD failure, which occurred for 1-in-10 catheters. Strict infection prevention measures and improved CVAD securement could reduce CLABSI and dislodgement risk.

Implementing paediatric appropriate use criteria for endotracheal suction to reduce complications in mechanically ventilated children with respiratory infections.

BACKGROUND: Endotracheal suction is used to maintain endotracheal tube patency. There is limited guidance to inform clinical practice for children with respiratory infections. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether implementation of a paediatric endotracheal suction appropriate use guideline Paediatric AirWay Suction (PAWS) is associated with an increased use of appropriate and decreased use of inappropriate suction interventions. METHODS: A mixed-method, pre-implementation-post-implementation study was conducted between September 2021 and April 2022. Suction episodes in mechanically ventilated children with a respiratory infection were eligible. Using a structured approach, we implemented the PAWS guideline in a single paediatric intensive care unit. Evaluation included clinical (e.g., suction intervention appropriateness), implementation (e.g., acceptability), and cost outcomes (implementation costs). Associations between implementation of the PAWS guideline and appropriateness of endotracheal suction intervention use were investigated using generalised linear models. RESULTS: Data from 439 eligible suctions were included in the analysis. Following PAWS implementation, inappropriate endotracheal tube intervention use reduced from 99% to 58%, an absolute reduction (AR) of 41% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 25%, 56%). Reductions were most notable for open suction systems (AR: 48%; 95% CI: 30%, 65%), 0.9% sodium chloride use (AR: 23%; 95% CI: 8%, 38%) and presuction and postsuction manual bagging (38%; 95% CI: 16%, 60%, and 86%; 95% CI: 73%, 99%), respectively. Clinicians perceived PAWS as acceptable and suitable for use. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of endotracheal tube suction appropriate use guidelines in a mixed paediatric intensive care unit was associated with a large reduction in inappropriate suction intervention use in paediatric patients with respiratory infections.

Midline Compared With Peripheral Intravenous Catheters for Therapy of 4 Days or Longer in Pediatric Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) frequently fail during treatment causing therapy interruption, pain, recatheterization, and additional health care costs. Midline catheters (MCs) may improve functional dwell time and reduce failure compared with traditional PIVCs. Objective: To compare device failure of MCs with PIVCs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a pragmatic, randomized clinical superiority trial with an embedded internal pilot study conducted from July 2020 to May 2022. The study took place in a quaternary pediatric hospital in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Inclusion criteria were patients aged 1 to 18 years requiring peripherally compatible intravenous therapy for 4 days or longer. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive a PIVC or MC, stratified by age (≤5 years, >5 years). One catheter was studied per patient. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause device failure, defined as premature cessation of device function. Secondary outcomes included number of insertion attempts, insertion failure, pain (on insertion), procedural time, patient/parent satisfaction (with insertion), device dwell time, device complications during dwell time, additional vascular access devices required to complete treatment, clinician satisfaction (at removal), and health care costs. Results: Of the 128 patients randomly assigned to study groups, 127 patients (median [IQR] age, 7 [2-13] years; 71 male [56%]) had a device inserted, with 65 (51.2%) in the PIVC group and 62 (48.8%) in the MC group. All patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Device failure was lower in patients in the MC group (10 [16.1%]) compared with those in the PIVC group (30 [46.2%]; odds ratio [OR], 0.22; 95% CI, 0.10-0.52; P <.001). MCs were associated with fewer insertion attempts (mean difference [MD], -0.3; 95% CI, -0.5 to 0; P = .04), increased dwell time (MD, 66.9 hours; 95% CI, 36.2-97.5 hours; P <.001), and fewer patients required additional vascular access devices to complete treatment in the MC group (4 [6.5%]) and PIVC group (19 [29.2%]; OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.05-0.52; P = .002). Compared with PIVCs, use of MCs was associated with greater patient (9.0 vs 7.1 of 10; P = .002) and parent (9.1 vs 8.2 of 10; P = .02) satisfaction and lower health care costs (AUS -$151.67 [US -$101.13] per person; 95% credible interval, AUS -$171.45 to -$131.90 [US -$114.20 to -$87.95]). Conclusions and Relevance: Findings suggest that MC insertion for patients requiring peripherally compatible intravenous therapy for 4 days or longer should be prioritized to reduce the resource intensive, expensive, and burdensome sequelae of device failure. Trial Registration: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12620000724976.