Implementación de un programa de terapia intravenosa en pacientes nefrológicos: análisis de los resultados / Implementation of an Intravenous Therapy Program in Nephrological Patients: Analysis of Results

Introducción:Evaluar la prevalencia y el impacto del uso de líneas medias canalizadas por el Equipo de Infusión y Accesos Vasculares mediante punción eco-guiada comparada con la es-trategia endovenosa convencional (punción de catéter venoso periférico por enfermeras de hospitalización) en una unidad de nefrología y trasplante renal.Material y Método: Estudio observacional retrospectivo. Se compararon 3 periodos: pre-implantación, implantación y consolidación del Equipo de Infusión y Accesos Vasculares. Se incluyeron todos los pacientes ingresados en las unidades de hospitalización de Nefrología y Trasplante Renal que requirie-ron de la colocación de catéteres vasculares periféricos y línea media. Se analizó la prevalencia de acceso venoso, el tiempo de permanencia y los motivos de retirada (complicaciones).Resultados: La incidencia de los catéteres vasculares perifé-ricos fue decreciente mientras que el de las líneas medias se incrementó progresivamente en los tres períodos. Así mismo, no se observaron diferencias en el tiempo medio de perma-nencia de los catéteres vasculares periféricos mientras que la permanencia de días de la línea media se incrementó.Se confirma en todos los periodos una tasa de complicaciones más elevada y variable en los catéteres vasculares periféricos; mientras que en la línea media la tasa de complicaciones fue menor y más estable.Conclusiones: La implementación de un programa de terapia intravenosa en pacientes nefrológicos ha permitido minimizar el número de dispositivos venosos por paciente, con la conse-cuente reducción de punciones durante el ingreso, así como la disminución de las complicaciones asociadas a la canaliza-ción venosa (menor morbilidad).Palabras clave: Equipo de Infusión y Accesos Vasculares (EIAV); Líneas Medias (LM); Catéteres Vasculares Periféricos (CVP); complicaciones; paciente nefrológico. (AU)

Objective:To evaluate the prevalence and impact of midline catheters inserted by the Infusion and Vascular Access Team using echo-guided puncture compared to conventional intra-venous strategies (peripheral venous catheter insertion by hospitalization nurses) in a nephrology and kidney transplant unit.Material and Method: This is a retrospective observational study. Three periods were compared: pre-implementation, implementation, and consolidation of the Infusion and Vas-cular Access Team. All patients admitted to the Nephrology and Kidney Transplantation hospitalization units requiring the placement of peripheral vascular catheters and midline were included. The prevalence of venous access, dwell time, and reasons for removal (complications) were analyzed. Resultados: The incidence of peripheral vascular catheters decreased while that of midlines progressively increased in all three periods. Moreover, there were no differences in the mean dwell time of peripheral vascular catheters, whereas the dwell time of midlines increased. A higher and variable rate of complications was confirmed in peripheral vascular catheters in all periods, while in midlines, the complication rate was lower and more stable.Conclusions: Implementing an intravenous therapy program in nephrology patients has allowed for minimizing the num-ber of venous devices per patient, resulting in a reduction in punctures during hospitalization and a decrease in com-plications associated with venous cannulation (lower mor-bidity). (AU)

Implementation of a vascular access team and an intravenous therapy programme: A first-year activity analysis.

BACKGROUND: Creating Vascular Access Teams (VAT) provides an expert nursing role that contributes to the training and continuous improvement of healthcare personnel. They can offer greater clinical safety, reducing complications and costs. Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and midline catheters (ML) can be safe and cost-effective alternatives to other types of venous access (VA). The aim of the study was to analyse our centre's VAT first 12 months of activity. The primary outcome was reported complications. Secondary outcomes were cause of catheter removal, consultancy activity and economic impact of VAT implantation. METHODOLOGY: A longitudinal, descriptive study was carried out from March 2019 to March 2020. Using consecutive sampling, all VA inserted, and all consults received were included. Patients under 18 years of age were excluded. RESULTS: The VAT inserted 1257 catheters into 1056 patients (291 MLs, 966 PICCs). The mean dwell time was 14.9 days for MLs and 59.07 days for PICCs. The main reason for removing VA was end of treatment (80.7%). During VA follow-up confirmed infection was detected in 1 ML (0.3%) and nine PICCs (0.9%). Symptomatic thrombosis was reported in 2 MLs (0.7%) and 16 PICCs (1.7%). The VAT received 367 consultations, and the main reason for consultation was to resolve doubts regarding the management of VA (80.9%). The insertion of ML and PICC catheters represented annual estimated economic savings of €867,688.44€. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides a detailed analysis of VAT's activity, its relevance to clinical safety, and to efficient resource management within our hospital. It demonstrates how VAT establishment can be a safe and efficient intervention that enhances care quality.