Midline peripheral catheters inserted in the superficial femoral vein at mid-thigh: Wise choice in COVID-19 acute hypoxemic respiratory failure patients with helmet continuous positive airway pressure.

BACKGROUND: During coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, Helmet Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (h-CPAP) has been widely used to treat Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure (AHRF). In COVID-19 patients undergoing h-CPAP a simple short peripheral catheter could be insufficient. According to the European Recommendations for Proper Indication and Use of Peripheral venous access consensus, a stable peripheral Vascular Access Device is indicated for intravenous treatment compatible with the peripheral route scheduled for more than 1 week. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the performance and the potential complications of superficial femoral midline catheters (SFMC) inserted in the Superficial Femoral Vein by direct Seldinger technique with peripheral tip (Arrow®, Teleflex; 20 cm length four FR single lumen and seven FR dual lumen) in AHRF COVID-19 patient. Complications were divided in early (accidental puncture of superficial femoral artery (APSFA); accidental saphenous nerve puncture (ASNP); bleeding) and late (Catheter Related Thrombosis (CRT); Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections (CRBSI); Accidental Removal (AR); persistent withdrawal occlusion (PWO)). METHODS: From 1st October 2020 to 30th June 2021 we conducted a prospective observational study in COVID-19 sub-intensive wards at Luigi Sacco Hospital (Milan). RESULTS: Hundred seventy five SFMC (mean dwell time 11.1 ± 9.8 days) were implanted in COVID-19 patients, 107 (61.1%) during h-CPAP treatment (10.5 ± 8.9 days), the remaining 68 (38.9%) in patients with severe disease. We recorded two minor immediate/early complications (APSFA without sequelae) and no major complications.The long-term follow-up registered four CRBSI (2.3%-2.5/1000 catheters days (CD)), five CRT (2.9%: 2.6/1000 CD), 22 AR (12.6%; 11.4/1000 CD), 38 PWO (36.5%), 34 of which occurred due to fibroblastic sleeve (32.7%). CONCLUSIONS: SFMC proved to be safe, easy and time-saving. It could be implemented, after a careful benefits and risks evaluation, in particular settings such as h-CPAP, delirium, bleeding risk factors and palliative care patients.

Evaluation of a new insertion site for arterial pressure line in intensive care unit management: a prospective study.

The arterial pressure line (A-line) is primarily inserted through the radial artery. However, accidental removal due to joint movement can be problematic in the intensive care unit (ICU). This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of A-line insertion in the ICU through the distal radial approach (DRA), which is used in cardiac catheterization. This single-center, prospective, comparative study included 200 patients (≥ 20 years) who were brought to our hospital for emergency care and required A-line insertion. Patients were quasi-randomized to the traditional radial approach (TRA) or DRA. Data were recorded at the time of A-line insertion, administration, and removal. We evaluated the vessel diameter, number of punctures, success of the procedure, presence of complications, such as infection during management, and time taken for hemostasis after catheter removal. The primary endpoint was the accidental removal rate. Due to incomplete information, data were collected for 193 patients (96 TRA and 97 DRA). Successful procedures were observed in 95 of the 96 patients with TRA and 94 of the 97 patients with DRA. Guidewire use during insertion was significantly more common in the DRA group (P < 0.01) and post-puncture splint fixation was significantly more common in the TRA group (P < 0.01). Accidental removal, the primary endpoint, was observed in 10 patients with TRAs and 11 patients with DRAs, with no significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.99). DRA is as safe and effective as the TRA, suggesting that it is useful as a new A-line insertion site.

Accidental removal of dialysis central venous catheter inserted for blood purification therapy: a single-center study.

BACKGROUND: Dialysis central venous catheters (DCs) are used for various blood purification therapies. Accidental removal of a DC is a potentially life-threatening event. However, the risk factors associated with accidental removal have rarely been discussed in the literature. METHODS: We performed a 5 year retrospective, single-center, cohort study of patients who were admitted to the ward other than intensive care units and were inserted DCs. We compared patient characteristics between patients who used DCs with and without a history of accidental removal. RESULTS: There were 17 cases of accidental removal (3.5%) out of 489 DC insertions during the observation period. There was no significant difference between patients with and without accidental removal in terms of age, sex, reason for DC insertion, catheter type, or insertion site. The presence of dementia was 35 and 11% (p = 0.006), and that of delirium was 88 and 13% (p < 0.0001) in those with and without accidental removal, respectively. The median days from insertion to accidental removal were 5 (range 0-21) days, and removal occurred mainly at night (71%). One patient with accidental removal developed hemorrhagic shock, but there no deaths occurred due to accidental removal. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings suggest that to prevent accidental removal, sufficient attention should be paid to delirium that occurs after admission as well to pre-existing dementia at the time of admission. As accidental removal occurs most commonly early after insertion and at night, special attention should be paid during these periods.

Accidental epidural catheter removal rates and strength required for disconnection: a retrospective cohort and laboratory study.

BACKGROUND: Epidural catheters are associated with certain risks such as accidental epidural catheter removal, including dislodgement and disconnection. Globally, neuraxial connector designs were revised in 2016 to provide new standardization aimed at decreasing the frequency of misconnections during the administration of medications. However, no studies have investigated accidental epidural catheter removal after the revised standardization. This study aimed to examine differences in dislodgement and disconnection rates associated with different catheter connector types, and to investigate the linear tensile strength required to induce disconnection. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included adult patients who underwent elective surgery and received patient-controlled epidural analgesia. Patients were divided into groups according to the type of catheter connection used: old standard, new standard, and new standard with taping groups. Furthermore, we prepared 60 sets of epidural catheters and connectors comprising 20 sets for each of the old, new, and taping groups, and used a digital tension meter to measure the maximum tensile strength required to induce disconnection. RESULTS: This clinical study involved 360, 182, and 378 patients in the old, new, and taping groups, respectively. Dislodgement rates did not differ statistically among the three groups, while there was a significant difference in disconnection rates. Propensity score matching analysis for disconnection rates showed no difference between the old and new groups (2.8% vs. 4.5%, p = 0.574), while the new group had higher rates than the taping group (6.5% vs. 0%, p = 0.002). This laboratory study identified that a tensile strength of 12.41 N, 12.06 N, and 19.65 N was required for disconnection in the old, new, and taping groups, respectively, and revealed no significant difference between the new and old groups (p = 0.823), but indicated a significant difference between the new and taping groups (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This clinical study suggested that dislodgement rates did not change among the three groups. Both clinical and laboratory studies revealed that disconnection rates did not change between the old and new connectors. Moreover, as a strategy to prevent accidents, taping the connecting points of the catheter connectors led to an increase in the tensile strength required for disconnection.

Safety of arterial catheterization using the distal radial approach in intensive care unit management: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Arterial catheter (A-line) is essential for managing severely ill patients, and the radial artery is the most common insertion site in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, many accidental removals occur because the insertion site of A-line in the traditional radial approach (TRA) overlaps with the joint flexion. Recent reports have shown no significant difference in the complication rates between coronarography using the distal radial approach (DRA) and that using TRA. However, to date, no report has examined accidental removals of DRA in the ICU. This study aimed to retrospectively evaluate the safety of the DRA A-line in ICU management. METHODS: This retrospective, descriptive, and observational study enrolled patients who underwent A-line insertion using the DRA at the authors' facility, which is a university hospital with approximately 1100 beds, from January 1, 2019 to August 31, 2019. The participants' clinical data were extracted from their medical records. The primary outcome was the number of accidental removals. RESULTS: The study included 20 patients with a median age of 70 (interquartile range (IQR): 58.5-77) years: 10 patients with traumas, 6 with cerebral hemorrhages, 2 with gastrointestinal perforations, and 2 with other diagnoses. The number of punctures was 1 in 15 patients, 2 in 4 patients, and 3 in 1 patient. Only 1 patient required ultrasound guidance, whereas 12 patients required the use of guidewires. The median duration after insertion was 3 (IQR 2.5-5.5) days. Accidental removal was noted in only one patient. No other complications were observed during the period from insertion to removal. CONCLUSIONS: DRA may be a safe option for insertion of a new A-line in the ICU.

Impact of delirium and suture-less securement on accidental vascular catheter removal in the ICU.

The objectives were to describe the incidence of accidental vascular catheter removal (AVCR) in an Australian Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and evaluate whether the fixation method or patient delirium increased the risk of AVCR. This prospective observational study was based in a tertiary level ICU between April 2011 and October 2012. All vascular catheters were secured either by sutures or by a suture-less securement device (STATLOCK(™), Bard Medical, Covington, GA, USA) as per the treating clinician. Data were obtained from bedside nursing staff, with daily screening for delirium completed by the ICU medical team using the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU. 2361 patients were admitted during this period with 1032 patients screened and data available for 322 patients (452 vascular catheters). AVCR occurred in 15 patients (16 vascular catheters) (5.0%) with an incidence of AVCR of 2.77 per 100 catheter-days. Delirious patients were 13-fold more likely to have an AVCR event (odds ratio=13.3; 95% confidence interval 4.36, 40.52; P <0.0001). There was a non-significant trend to an increase in AVCR when using the suture-less securement device (odds ratio=2.6; 95% confidence interval 0.87, 7.8; P=0.09) but delirious patients were no more likely to have an AVCR episode when a suture-less securement device was used (P=0.95). In this study the use of suture-less securement did not seem to increase the risk of AVCR. However, there was a non-significant trend towards increased AVCR when using suture-less securement devices, which may reflect a ß error.