Patterns, appropriateness and outcomes of peripherally inserted central catheter use in Brazil: a multicentre study of 12 725 catheters.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) use, appropriateness and device outcomes in Brazil. METHODS: We conducted an observational, prospective, cohort study spanning 16 Brazilian hospitals from October 2018 to August 2020. Patients ≥18 years receiving a PICC were included. PICC placement variables were abstracted from medical records. PICC-related major (deep vein thrombosis (DVT), central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) and catheter occlusion) and minor complications were collected. Appropriateness was evaluated using the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC). Devices were considered inappropriate if they were in place for <5 days, were multi-lumen, and/or were placed in patients with a creatinine >2.0 mg/dL. PICCs considered appropriate met none of these criteria. Mixed-effects logistic regression models adjusting for patient-level and hospital-level characteristics assessed the association between appropriateness and major complications. RESULTS: Data from 12 725 PICCs were included. Mean patient age was 66.4±19 years and 51.0% were female. The most common indications for PICCs were intravenous antibiotics (81.1%) and difficult access (62.7%). Most PICCs (72.2%) were placed under ultrasound guidance. The prevalence of complications was low: CLABSI (0.9%); catheter-related DVT (1.0%) and reversible occlusion (2.5%). Of the 12 725 devices included, a total of 7935 (62.3%) PICCs were inappropriate according to MAGIC. With respect to individual metrics for appropriateness, 17.0% were placed for <5 days, 60.8% were multi-lumen and 11.3% were in patients with creatinine >2.0 mg/dL. After adjusting for patient and hospital-level characteristics, multi-lumen PICCs considered inappropriate were associated with greater odds of major complications (OR 2.54, 95% CI 1.61 to 4.02). CONCLUSIONS: Use of PICCs in Brazilian hospitals appears to be safe and comparable with North America. However, opportunities to improve appropriateness remain. Future studies examining barriers and facilitators to improving device use in Brazil would be welcomed.

Impact of the International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC) multidimensional hand hygiene approach in 3 cities in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Hand hygiene (HH) is the main tool for cross-infection prevention, but adherence to guidelines is low in limited-resource countries, and there are not available published data from Brazil. METHODS: This is an observational, prospective, interventional, before-and-after study conducted in 4 intensive care units in 4 hospitals, which are members of the International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC), from June 2006-April 2008. The study was divided into a 3-month baseline period and a follow-up period. A multidimensional HH approach was introduced, which included administrative support, supplies availability, education and training, reminders in the workplace, process surveillance, and performance feedback. Health care workers were observed for HH practices in each intensive care unit during randomly selected 30-minute periods. RESULTS: We recorded 4,837 opportunities for HH, with an overall HH compliance that increased from 27%-58% (P < .01). Multivariate analysis showed that some variables were associated with poor HH compliance: men versus women (49% vs 38%, P < .001), nurses versus doctors (55% vs 48%, P < .02), among others. CONCLUSIONS: With the implementation of the INICC approach, adherence to HH was significantly increased. Programs should be aimed at improving HH in variables found to be predictors of poor HH compliance.