Technical success and safety of peripherally inserted central catheters in the great saphenous and anterior accessory great saphenous veins.

BACKGROUND: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) are occasionally placed in the great saphenous vein (GSV) and anterior accessory great saphenous vein (AAGSV) in patients with inadequate upper extremity veins or contraindications to upper extremity placement. Outcomes on the placement of PICCs in these veins are limited. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine technical success and safety of GSV/AAGSV PICCs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective study that reviewed all GSV/AAGSV PICC placements between January 2011 and December 2019. A total of 29 PICC placements procedures were identified. The electronic medical record was queried for demographic, procedural, and complication data. Technical success was defined by whether the vein could be accessed and a PICC could be placed. Catheter-associated infections, dislodgement or migration, malfunction, and PICC-associated thrombosis were recorded. RESULTS: Technical success of placement was 100%. Twenty-one (72%) catheters were placed in the GSV in the mid to upper thigh and eight (28%) were placed in the AAGSV. The median PICC dwell time was 13 days with a range of 3-155 days. PICC-associated complications occurred after 11 (37.9%) placements. Line associated infection was the most common complication (17.2%). CONCLUSION: Due to a high complication rate, GSV/AAGSV PICC placement should be considered only when upper extremity or cervical PICC placement is not feasible or contraindicated.

Evaluation of Changing Vena Cava Filter Use and Inpatient Hospital Mortality from 2016-2019: A Single-Institution Quality Improvement Project.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the changing trends of vena cava filter (VCF) insertion and determine whether changes in VCF use affected inpatient mortality. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A quality improvement project at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, tracks the type and reason for VCF insertions from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2019, to facilitate appropriate retrieval. The rate of VCF insertions was compared with inpatient mortality rates, normalized for patient volumes using the number of hospital inpatient discharges. RESULTS: A total of 698 VCFs were placed in 695 patients: 2016 (n=243), 2017 (n=156), 2018 (n=156), and 2019 (n=120). The rate of VCF insertions (per 1000 inpatient discharges) was 4.02 in 2016, 2.91 in 2017, 2.54 in 2018, and 1.93 in 2019. Mean ± SD age at placement was 62±16.4 years and 59.2% (413/698) were men. Most VCFs were retrievable (85.1%; 594/698) and were placed for treatment (78.4%; 547/698) indications (acute venous thromboembolism within 3 months). The rate of VCF insertions was compared with the inpatient mortality rate (per 100 inpatient discharges) and remained stable (1.83 in 2016, 1.79 in 2017, 1.83 in 2018, and 1.76 in 2019) despite the significant decline in VCF use. CONCLUSION: Data from this quality improvement study demonstrate a reduction of more than 50% in the use of VCFs from 2016 through 2019 at a large academic hospital. These changes are difficult to attribute to any single change in clinical use and there was no appreciable increase in the inpatient hospital mortality rate associated with this decrease in VCF filter use.