RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated a chlorhexidine-coated peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) and the incidence of associated complications within both inpatient and outpatient populations. METHODS: This IRB-approved, multicenter, prospective observational study was performed at three large teaching hospitals in the US. All adults who required a PICC for ⩾14 days were considered. Patients were monitored throughout entire catheter dwell. Duplex venous ultrasounds were performed before insertion, after 10 to 14 days of dwell time, and upon removal. Data was collected from the hospital, outpatient clinic, and patient PICC diary records. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients, 56% male, with mean BMI 29 ± 8.8, were enrolled. The majority (79%) of patients were from high-risk groups-cancer, infectious diseases, transplant, and trauma. Primary treatment indications were antibiotics (66.99%) and chemotherapy (25.24%). Double lumen PICCs (59.2%) were favored clinically, as was basilic vein placement (71.84%). Mean catheter dwell was 47.01 ± 25.82 days. Three (3, 2.9%) central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) were reported. Four patients (4.6%) reported symptomatic catheter-related thrombosis (CRT), confirmed with ultrasound. Three patients (3.4%) had ultrasound-confirmed fibroblastic sleeve (FS). Eight patients (9.2%) who entered the study with pre-existing superficial thrombosis, had complete resolution at the time of catheter removal. The incidence of CLABSI was 0.82/1000 days. The combined CRT and FS rate was 6.9%. CONCLUSION: Based upon the observational findings of this study, chlorhexidine-coated PICC technology may be considered for use in patient populations who are at moderate to high-risk for catheter-related complications in both inpatient and outpatient settings.
RESUMEN
Resuscitation with IV fluids is a critical component in the management of sepsis. Although the optimal volume of IV fluid is unknown, there is evidence that excessive administration can be deleterious. Static measures of volume status have not proven to be meaningful resuscitative endpoints. Determination of volume responsiveness has putative benefits over static measures, but its effect on outcomes is unknown. The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine if resuscitation with a volume responsiveness-guided approach leads to improved outcomes in septic patients. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar from inception until April 2018. STUDY SELECTION: Prospective studies of patients with sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock that compared volume responsiveness-guided fluid resuscitation to standard techniques and reported mortality data. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted study details, patient characteristics, volume responsiveness assessment method, and mortality data. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of the 1,224 abstracts and 31 full-texts evaluated, four studies (total 365 patients) met inclusion criteria. Using random effects modeling, the pooled odds ratio for mortality at time of longest follow-up with a volume responsiveness-guided strategy was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.49-1.54). Pooling of clinical data was not possibly owing to heterogeneity of reporting in individual studies. CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant difference in mortality between septic patients resuscitated with a volume responsiveness-guided approach compared with standard resuscitative strategies. It remains unclear whether the findings are due to the small sample size or a true lack of efficacy of a volume responsiveness-guided approach.
