Experiences of children with central venous access devices: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Our study aims to explore the experience of having a central venous access device (CVAD) from the perspective of the child and family and how movements within and outside of hospital environments influence this experience. METHODS: A mixed-methods study was conducted across Children's Health Queensland (Australia), including inpatient and home-care settings. Children less than 18 years with CVADs were eligible and followed for 3 months or CVAD removal. A subgroup of primary caregivers participated in semi-structured interviews. Quantitative and qualitative measures of child and family CVAD experiences were explored. RESULTS: In total, 163 patients with 200 CVADs were recruited and followed for 6993 catheter days (3329 [48%] inpatients; 3147 [45%] outpatients; 517 [7%] home). Seventeen participants were interviewed. Experiences of having a CVAD were complex but predominantly positive primarily related to personalized CVAD care, healthcare quality, and general wellbeing. Their experience was shaped by their movements through hospital and home environments, including care variation and distress with procedures. Device selection and insertion location further influenced experience, including safety, impairments in activities of daily living, school, and recreation. CONCLUSIONS: CVAD experiences were influenced by nonmodifiable (e.g., diagnosis) and modifiable factors (e.g., education; care variation). Clinical approaches and policies that account for family and child considerations should be explored. IMPACT: Variation in decision making and management for pediatric CVADs is accepted by many clinicians, but the influence this variation has on the health experience of children and their families is less well explored. This is the first study to draw from a broad range of children requiring CVADs to determine their experience within and outside of healthcare facilities. Interdisciplinary clinicians and researchers need to work collaboratively with children and their families to provide resources and support services to ensure they have positive experiences with CVADs, no matter where they are managed, or who they are managed by.

Pediatric central venous access devices: practice, performance, and costs.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare delivery is reliant on a functional central venous access device (CVAD), but the knowledge surrounding the burden of pediatric CVAD-associated harm is limited. METHODS: A prospective cohort study at a tertiary-referral pediatric hospital in Australia. Children <18 years undergoing insertion of a CVAD were screened from the operating theatre and intensive care unit records, then assessed bi-weekly for up to 3 months. Outcomes were CVAD failure and complications, and associated healthcare costs (cost of complications). RESULTS: 163 patients with 200 CVADs were recruited and followed for 6993 catheter days, with peripherally inserted central catheters most common (n = 119; 60%). CVAD failure occurred in 20% of devices (n = 30; 95% CI: 15-26), at an incidence rate (IR) of 5.72 per 1000 catheter days (95% CI: 4.09-7.78). CVAD complications were evident in 43% of all CVADs (n = 86; 95% CI: 36-50), at a rate of 12.29 per 1000 catheter days (95% CI: 9.84-15.16). CVAD failure costs were A$826 per episode, and A$165,372 per 1000 CVADs. Comparisons between current and recommended practice revealed inconsistent use of ultrasound guidance for insertion, sub-optimal tip-positioning, and appropriate device selection. CONCLUSIONS: CVAD complications and failures represent substantial burdens to children and healthcare. Future efforts need to focus on the inconsistent use of best practices. IMPACT: Current surveillance of central venous access device (CVAD) performance is likely under-estimating actual burden on pediatric patients and the healthcare system. CVAD failure due to complication was evident in 20% of CVADs. Costs associated with CVAD complications average at $2327 (AUD, 2020) per episode. Further investment in key diverse practice areas, including new CVAD types, CVAD pathology-based occlusion and dislodgment strategies, the appropriate use of device types, and tip-positioning technologies, will likely lead to extensive benefit.

Comparison of midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters to reduce the need for general anesthesia in children with respiratory disease: A feasibility randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal intravenous device for antibiotic administration for children with respiratory disease is uncertain. We assessed the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial comparing midline catheters with peripherally inserted central catheters. METHODS: Prospective, two-arm, feasibility randomized controlled trial in an Australian tertiary, pediatric hospital. Random assignment of 110 children (<18 years) to receive (i) midline catheter and (ii) peripherally inserted central catheters. Primary outcome was feasibility (eligibility, recruitment, retention, protocol adherence, and acceptability), and the primary clinical outcome was general anesthesia requirement for intravenous catheter insertion. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: insertion time, treatment delays, infusion efficiency, device failure, complications, and cost. RESULTS: There was 80% recruitment, 100% retention, no missing data, and high patient/staff acceptability. Mean patient experience assessed on a 0-10 numeric rating scale was 8.0 peripherally inserted central catheters and 9.0 (midline catheters), respectively. Participant eligibility was not achieved (49% of screened patients) and moderate protocol-adherence across groups (89% peripherally inserted central catheters vs. 76% midline catheter). Insertion of midline catheter for pulmonary optimization reduced the requirement for general anesthesia compared to peripherally inserted central catheters (10% vs. 69%; odds ratio = 0.01, 95% confidence interval: 0.00-0.09). Midline catheters failed more frequently (18.1 vs. 5.5 peripherally inserted central catheters per 1000 catheter-days); however, this reduced over trial duration. Midline catheter insertion compared to peripherally inserted central catheters saved AUD$1451 per pulmonary optimization episode. CONCLUSIONS: An efficacy trial is feasible with expanded eligibility criteria and intensive staff training when introducing a new device. Midline catheter for peripherally compatible infusions is acceptable to patients and staff, might negate the need for general anesthesia and results in significant cost savings.

Prevention of occlusion of cEnTral lInes for children with cancer: An implementation study.

AIM: Central venous access devices (CVADs) are vital medical devices to support the treatment of paediatric cancer; however, device occlusion is common, which disrupts treatment. This study aimed to improve the identification and management of CVAD occlusions in children with cancer, as well as to identify the demographic, clinical and device characteristics associated with increased risk for CVAD occlusion. METHODS: A pre-post-implementation study was conducted at a metropolitan paediatric oncology facility in Australia, using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Patients with a CVAD for anti-cancer therapy were prospectively followed for occlusive events pre- and post- the implementation of clinical resources to support the identification and management of CVAD occlusive events. CVAD occlusion and management data were collected and compared pre- and post-implementation. Risk factors for CVAD occlusion were described by mixed-effects Poisson regression and incident rate ratios (IRR). RESULTS: A total of 133 CVADs were inserted into 131 patients for a total of 6784 catheter days. The incidence of CVAD-related occlusion pre-implementation was 59.7 (95% confidence interval (CI) 51.4-69.0, per 1000 catheter days); compared to 31.6 (95% CI 26.4-37.6); P < 0.01) post-implementation of clinical resources. In multivariate models, other than post-implementation phases (IRR 0.51 (95% CI 0.32-0.81)), only neutropaenia significantly increased the risk of CVAD occlusion (IRR 2.14 (95% CI 1.15-3.97)). CONCLUSION: CVAD occlusions in paediatric oncology are common. The development and implementation of CVAD occlusion resources to guide the identification and management of occlusive episodes led to a significant decrease in occlusive events.

Smile - Secure my intravenous line effectively: A pilot randomised controlled trial of peripheral intravenous catheter securement in paediatrics.

AIM: Evaluate the feasibility of an efficacy randomised control trial (RCT) of paediatric peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) securement to prevent failure without resultant skin damage. METHODS: A 3-arm, pilot RCT in an Australian paediatric hospital. Random assignment of 330 children to receive (i) bordered polyurethane dressing (BPU) + non-sterile foam (NSF), (ii) integrated securement dressing (ISD) + sterile foam (SF), or (iii) tissue adhesive (TA)+ NSF. Primary outcomes were feasibility and PIVC failure. Secondary outcomes included: skin/bloodstream infection; occlusion; infiltration; dislodgement; phlebitis; dwell; serious adverse events; acceptability and microbial colonisation of catheter tips, wound site, and foam. RESULTS: Most feasibility outcomes were confirmed; 98% of eligible patients consented, 96% received their allocated dressing and no patients were lost to follow up. Eligilbility feasibility (58%) was not met. 11 randomised patients did not require a PIVC. Of 319 patients receiving a PIVC (20,716 PIVC-hours), a significant reduction in PIVC failure was demonstrated with ISD, 31/107 (29%, p = 0.017) compared to BPU, 47/105 (45%). Although not statistically significant, compared to BPU, TA 34/107 (32%, p = 0.052) was associated with less PIVC failure. On Cox regression, no securement intervention significantly reduced PIVC failure. Older age (HR 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-0.96; p = <0.01), no infection at baseline (HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.34-0.78) and insertion by vascular access specialist (HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.26-0.64) were significantly associated with reduced failure (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: ISD and TA had reduced PIVC failure compared to BPU. A large efficacy trial to test statistical differences is feasible and needed.

Implementation of a paediatric peripheral intravenous catheter care bundle: A quality improvement initiative.

AIM: To improve paediatric peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) care through the implementation of care bundles. METHODS: A pre-post study using mixed methods (clinical audit, staff survey, parent interviews) in 2016 at a tertiary paediatric hospital in Brisbane was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a PIVC insertion and maintenance bundle to improve PIVC insertion, promote function and support practice. Participants included children with PIVC, parents and staff inserting and managing PIVCs. A mnemonic care bundle, SUCCESS PIVCS (At insertion: Skills, Understand and prepare, Consent, Clean site, Escalate, Secure, Sign and document. During management: Prompt removal, Inspect hourly, Vein patency, Clean hands and Scrub the hub), was developed and implemented via visual aids, workshops and change champions. During audit, PIVC first-attempt insertion success, PIVC failure, PIVC dwell, escalation to senior clinicians and insertion and management procedures were measured. RESULTS: Pre-implementation audit (n = 102) and survey (n = 117) data described high rates of PIVC failure (n = 50; 49%), difficulty obtaining equipment (n = 64; 55%) and pressure to insert (n = 50; 43%). Parent interviews (n = 15) identified lack of communication, fear, appreciation of skilled technicians and technology and care giver roles as key to improving the experience. After implementation first-attempt insertion success (45 vs. 62%; risk ratio 1.37, 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.78), first-attempt escalation to senior clinicians (junior doctor 72 vs. 41%; P = <0.001) and median PIVC dwell (40 vs. 52 h; P = 0.021) improved. CONCLUSION: This multi-level care bundle demonstrated improvements in the insertion and management of PIVCs; however, PIVC failure remained high.

Securement to Prevent Noncuffed Central Venous Catheter Dislodgement in Pediatrics: The SECURED Superiority Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Catheter dislodgement is a common complication for children with tunneled or peripherally inserted noncuffed central venous catheters (CVCs). A subcutaneous anchor securement system (SASS) may reduce this risk compared with traditional adhesive securement. Objective: To compare dislodgement of noncuffed CVCs secured with SASS with dislodgement of noncuffed CVCs secured with sutureless securement devices (SSDs). Design, Setting, and Participants: The SECURED (Securing Central Venous Catheters to Prevent Dislodegment) trial was a pragmatic, multicenter, superiority randomized clinical trial with an internal pilot and was conducted from August 5, 2020, to August 30, 2022, at 2 Australian quaternary pediatric hospitals. Data analysis was performed in January 2023. Patients aged 0 to 18 years requiring a noncuffed CVC (≥3F catheter) were eligible for inclusion. Follow-up duration was 8 weeks or until device removal. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive an SASS or SSD, stratified by hospital and catheter type. Only 1 catheter was studied per patient. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was dislodgement (partial or total), defined as movement of the catheter tip by greater than 1 cm (change in external catheter length) at any point during catheter dwell. Dislodgement, reported as a risk ratio (RR), was estimated using a generalized linear model with binomial family and log link. Secondary outcomes were reported as incidence rate ratios and were analyzed using Poission regression. Outcomes reported as mean differences (MDs) were analyzed using linear regression. Results: Of 310 randomized patients, 175 patients (56.5%) were male and median (IQR) patient age was 48 (16-120) months. A total of 307 patients had a catheter device inserted, of which 153 (49.8%) were SASS and 154 (50.2%) were SSD, and were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Device dislodgement was lower with SASS (8 dislodgements in 153 patients [5.2%]) compared with SSD (35 dislodgements in 154 patients [22.7%]) (RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.11-0.48; P < .001). The per-protocol analysis was consistent with the ITT analysis. Partial dislodgement accounted for most dislodgement events, including 6 partial dislodgements in the SASS group (3.9%) and 30 partial dislodgements in the SSD group (19.5%) (RR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.08-0.42). This contributed to fewer complications during dwell in the SASS group (37 reported complications [24.2%]) vs the SSD group (60 reported complications [39.0%]) (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44-0.87). Staff reported greater difficulty removing devices anchored with SASS vs SSD (mean [SD], 29.1 [31.3] vs 5.3 [17.0], respectively; MD, 23.8; 95% CI, 16.7-31.0). However, use of SASS resulted in reduced per-participant health care costs of A$36.60 (95% credible interval, 4.25-68.95; US $24.36; 95% credible interval, 2.83-45.89). Conclusions and Relevance: In the SECURED trial, noncuffed CVCs secured with SASS had fewer dislodgements compared with SSDs, with a lower cost per patient and an acceptable safety profile. Future efforts should be directed at SASS implementation at the health service level. Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12620000783921.

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.

Routine Catheter Lock Solutions in Pediatric Cancer Care: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of Heparin vs Saline.

BACKGROUND: Central venous access devices (CVADs) are integral to cancer care provision. Despite the high prevalence of CVAD complications in children with cancer, preventative strategies are understudied. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess study feasibility, occlusive events, thrombolytic use, adverse events, and direct costs of catheter lock solutions. METHODS: A single-center, parallel-group, pilot randomized controlled trial was undertaken at a tertiary-referral pediatric hospital in Australia. Children 18 years or younger with an oncological or malignant hematological condition and a CVAD were eligible. Participants were 1:1 randomized to (1) normal or (2) heparinized (10-100 U/mL; CVAD-type dependent) saline lock solutions. RESULTS: Of 217 children assessed for eligibility, 61 were recruited and randomized to normal (n = 30; 3850 CVAD days) or heparinized (n = 31; 4036 CVAD days) saline. Eligibility (52%) and recruitment (54%) feasibility targets were not met. Protocol adherence was high (95% assessments), with no attrition. Parent/clinician satisfaction of interventions was high (median, 10/10 clinicians/parents). Complete CVAD occlusion occurred in heparin only (n = 2, 6.7% CVADs; incidence rate [IR], 0.49/1000 CVAD days [0.06-1.78]). Central venous access device partial occlusion was detected in 23.3% of CVADs in heparin (n = 7; IR, 2.73/1000 CVAD days [1.36-4.87]) and 13.8% of CVADs in normal saline (n = 4; IR, 2.59/1000 CVAD days [1.24-4.77]). Thrombolytic agents were used in 16.7% heparin (5 CVADs) and 3.5% normal saline (1 CVAD). Adverse events did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: Multisite randomized controlled trials examining CVAD locks are safe, but strategies and resources to increase recruitment and eligibility are required. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Both routine CVAD lock solutions seem safe but may not prevent all forms of CVAD-associated harm.

Skin Complications Associated With Pediatric Central Venous Access Devices: Prevalence, Incidence, and Risk.

Central venous access devices (CVADs) are vital to enable treatment for children with cancer and other complex health conditions. However, complications effecting the CVAD wound are commonly reported. This study aimed to identify the incidence and prevalence of CVAD-associated skin complications current management, and characteristics associated with complication development, in pediatrics. A prospective observational study performed across medical, oncology, and hematology departments at a tertiary pediatric hospital in Australia, between April and July 2017. Children admitted with CVADs were assessed twice weekly for CVAD-associated skin complications and associated signs and symptoms. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics (i.e., proportions, frequency) and time-to-event multivariable regression (i.e., hazard ratios [HRs]). Two hundred and seventy-one CVADs were reviewed over 43,787 catheter days, with over one eighth of participants (14%; n = 37) having a CVAD-associated skin complication during their admission (0.95 per 1,000 catheter days, 95% confidence interval [CI; 0.61, 1.17]), most commonly contact dermatitis (11%; n = 29; 0.72 per 1,000 catheter days 95% CI [0.50, 1.04]). Within biweekly checks the median point prevalence of complications varied between 0.4% and 11% and clinical management was wide-ranging. A primary diagnosis of oncology (HR 2.89, 95% CI [1.10, 7.62]) or medical/surgical (HR 2.55, 95% CI [1.04, 6.22]) conditions; plain, nonbordered polyurethane dressings (HR 4.92, 95% CI [2.00, 12.13]); and poor dressing integrity (HR 2.64, 95% CI [1.18, 5.92]) were significantly associated with contact dermatitis. In conclusion, substantial numbers of pediatric patients experience CVAD-associated skin complications, and innovations are necessary to identify, prevent, and treat these health care-associated injuries.