Hydrophilic biomaterial intravenous hydrogel catheter for complication reduction in PICC and midline catheters.

INTRODUCTION: More than 30% of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and midline catheters experience complications. Most complications are related to thrombotic cellular adherence to catheter materials. AREAS COVERED: This manuscript outlines PICC and midline catheter complications, the need to reduce complications and how hydrogel catheters may provide a solution to address these unmet needs based on available evidence. EXPERT OPINION: Patients commonly require PICC or midline catheters for treatment to establish a reliable form of intravenous access. Catheters, while reliable in most cases, are not without complications, including occlusion, thrombosis and infection, each related to cellular adherence to the catheter material. Hydrophilic catheter coatings and composites have been developed to mitigate these thrombotic complications, reduce adherence of blood and bacterial cells to catheters and provide greater patient safety with these devices. Hydrogel materials are highly biocompatible and have been effective in reducing cellular adherence and the formation of biofilms on surfaces. Smooth hydrophilic catheter surfaces are potentially more comfortable for the patient, with reduced friction during insertion and removal. A catheter constructed of hydrophilic biomaterial, a hydrogel composite material, may minimize thrombotic complications in PICC and midline catheters, improving catheter performance and outcomes for patients.

Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario (RNAO) best practice guideline on the assessment and management of vascular access devices.

INTRODUCTION: Vascular access is the most common invasive procedure performed in health care. This fundamental procedure must be performed in a safe and effective manner. Vascular access devices (VADs) are often the source of infections and other complications, yet there is a lack of clear guidance on VADs for health providers across different settings. A Best Practice Guideline (BPG) was developed by the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario (RNAO) to provide evidence-based recommendations on the assessment and management of VADs. METHODS: RNAO BPGs are based on systematic reviews of the literature following the GRADE approach. Experts on the topic of vascular access were selected to form a panel. Systematic reviews were conducted on six research areas: education, vascular access specialists, blood draws, daily review of peripheral VADs, visualization technologies, and pain management. A search for relevant research studies published in English limited to January 2013 was applied to eight databases. All studies were independently assessed for eligibility and risk of bias by two reviewers based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The GRADE approach was used to determine certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: Over 65,000 articles were screened related to the six priority research questions. Of these, 876 full-text publications were examined for relevance, with 174 articles designated to inform nine recommendations in the BPG on the subject areas of: comprehensive health teaching, practical education for health providers, blood draws, daily review of peripheral VADs, visualization technologies, and pain management. In June 2021, the RNAO published the BPG on vascular access, which included the recommendations and other supporting resources. CONCLUSION: The vascular access BPG provides high quality guidance and updated recommendations, and can serve as a primary resource for health providers assessing and managing VADs.

Device profile of the Orchid safety release valve for the prevention of accidental catheter dislodgement.

INTRODUCTION: More than 4 out of 5 patients in acute care require intravenous catheters. Complications of catheter dislodgement and failure are commonly reported at rates of 15-69% causing interrupted treatment and greater resource consumption when catheter replacement is required. AREAS COVERED: This manuscript outlines unmet needs in the prevention of catheter dislodgement and how a novel safety release device (Orchid SRV™, Linear Health Sciences) might address these gaps based on available evidence. EXPERT OPINION: Healthcare initiatives focus on reducing complications and associated costs with the delivery of intravenous treatments. Tension-activated safety release valve devices, attached to intravenous tubing, are a new feature that adds a level of safety to intravenous catheters to reduce mechanical catheter dislodgement when a pull force of greater than 3 pounds is applied. Incorporating a tension-activated accessory into and between existing intravenous tubing and the catheter and extension set protects the catheter from dislodgement. Flow continues until excessive pull force separates and closes the flow pathway in both directions, while the SRV provides a quick replacement to reestablish flow. The safety release valve is used to prevent accidental catheter dislodgement, limit tubing contamination, and avoid more serious complications while maintaining a functional catheter.

It is common for intravenous treatment to be disrupted due to accidental dislodgement of the catheter. Once this happens, the catheter must be replaced. This dislodgement may cause patient discomfort, loss of intravenous access to treatment, increase the chance of catheter failure due to blockage, and increase the risk of life-threatening infection. A new tension release device, the Orchid SRV, is designed to increase patient safety with a release valve, activated with any pulling force on the connected tubing, to prevent dislodgement and complications associated with catheter failure.

Case report: End of life care via a mid-thigh femoral midline catheter.

Maintaining peripheral vascular access represents a major challenge for medical providers and patients leading to the emergence of ultrasound guided vascular access teams. Upper extremity peripheral vascular access options are often limited in the chronically ill patient population with end stage cancer, patients with severe contractures, tracheostomies, and feeding tubes and patients referred for palliative care are just some examples of patients who live with difficult access. The following is a case description of a mid-thigh superficial femoral vein midline catheter for comfort care medications in a patient with exhausted peripheral vasculature on hospice.

Rapid Assessment of Vascular Exit Site and Tunneling Options (RAVESTO): A new decision tool in the management of the complex vascular access patients.

In the last decade, different standardized protocols have been developed for a systematic ultrasound venous assessment before central venous catheterization: RaCeVA (Rapid Central Vein Assessment), RaPeVA (Rapid Peripheral Vein Assessment), and RaFeVA (Rapid Femoral Vein Assessment). Such protocols were designed to locate the ideal puncture site to minimize insertion-related complications. Recently, subcutaneous tunneling of non-cuffed central venous access devices at bedside has also grown in acceptance. The main rationale for tunneling is to relocate the exit site based on patient factors and concerns for dislodgement. The tool we describe (RAVESTO-Rapid Assessment of Vascular Exit Site and Tunneling Options) defines the different options of subcutaneous tunneling and their indications in different clinical situations in patients with complex vascular access.

Investigative study of hemodilution ratio: 4Vs for vein diameter, valve, velocity, and volumetric blood flow as factors for optimal forearm vein selection for intravenous infusion.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal research and guidelines recognize veins in the forearm used for peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) insertion can optimize dwell time. Yet, many PIVCs are still placed in areas of flexion or suboptimal locations such as the back of the hand causing premature failure of >50%. This study identified characteristics of the forearm cephalic vein that make the anatomical location highly successful for PIVC insertion. The goal was to increase the understanding of the human vasculature in association with fluid mechanics in veins above the wrist and below the antecubital fossa. METHODOLOGY: A prospective in-vivo study with 10 consented healthy human volunteers (HHVs) was performed with Color Pulse Wave Doppler Ultrasound that captured high-resolution video and images of vein diameter, velocity of blood flow, and location of venous valves in the forearm. RESULTS: Forearm vein diameter was not directly correlated with higher or lower Velocity of Blood Flow (0.58 cm = 3.0 cm/s). However, Volumetric Blood Flow rates tended to be lower (2.51-8.28 mL/min) with Vein Diameters smaller than 0.29 cm. Ultrasound assessments and Volumetric Blood Flow calculations confirmed natural turbulence in blood and retrograde blood reflux correlated with venous valves opening and closing. Areas of turbulence, with pulse flushing, created backflow with retrograde blood flow around and into the catheter. CONCLUSIONS: Placement of long PIVCs in the cephalic veins of the upper forearm yield adequate flow and hemodilution capacity for veins with at least a 3 to 1 hemodilution ratio. The data from this study, along with previous research, suggest that PIVC placement in the cephalic vein, based on selection criteria, may help to reduce or eliminate intravenous complications such as chemical or mechanical thrombophlebitis causing premature catheter failure. Application of these investigational principles may result in better outcomes and catheter longevity for patients who require intravenous infusions.

Home infusion pharmacy quality improvement for central venous access devices using anti-reflux needleless connectors to reduce occlusions, emergency room visits, and alteplase costs.

PURPOSE: The study's purpose was to measure the impact of anti-reflux needleless connector usage in prevention of intraluminal thrombotic occlusions among central venous catheters, as represented by alteplase usage, in a home infusion patient population. METHODS: An18-month before-and-after cohort study of a single home infusion intervention was conducted to compare occlusion outcomes with use of two types of needleless connectors-neutral and anti-reflux-in preventing catheter occlusions, which have been reported to occur in 28% of home infusion patients, resulting in treatment delays, increased nursing encounters and emergency room visits, and higher overall pharmacy costs for supplies and alteplase. RESULTS: A total of 552,707 patient therapy days were studied: 42.5% in the neutral needleless connector group (n = 235,004 therapy days) and 57.5% in the anti-reflux needleless connector group (n = 317,703 therapy days). The rate of alteplase usage with neutral versus anti-reflux needleless connectors was 4.4% versus 2.2% per 1,000 therapy days, with median alteplase use of 112 (95% CI, 89-169) units versus 82 (95% CI, 68-109) units (P < 0.001). Implementation of anti-reflux connectors reduced occlusions and alteplase usage by 48%. CONCLUSION: Statistical evidence demonstrated that use of anti-reflux needleless connectors with central venous access devices reduced the need for alteplase in the study population. Since 10% of patient occlusions were within 7 days after home infusion admission, future research may indicate that placement of anti-reflux needleless connectors at the time of in-hospital insertion can improve patient outcomes. This quality improvement measure reduced central catheter occlusions, alteplase costs, and the number of required nursing and emergency room visits.

A retrospective analysis of the clinical effectiveness of subcutaneously tunneled femoral vein cannulations at the bedside: A low risk central venous access approach in the neonatal intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this retrospective analysis was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of ultrasound (US)-guided, subcutaneously tunneled, femoral inserted central catheters (ST-FICCs) in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). METHODS: Following clinical success with ST-FICCs in adults, we expanded this practice to the neonatal population. In an 18-month retrospective cohort analysis (2018-2020) of 82 neonates, we evaluated the clinical outcome for procedural success, completion of therapy, and incidence of early and late complications for insertion of US-guided ST-FICCs in the NICU. RESULTS: Placement of ST-FICCs were successful in 100% of neonates (n = 82/82) with 94% to the right (n = 77/82) and 6% to the left common femoral veins (n = 5/82). Gestational age ranged 23-39 weeks with median age of 29 weeks. Birthweight ranged from 450 g to >2000 g. Weight at insertion ranged 570 to 3345 g and day of life 1 to 137, with median at day 5. Ultrasound guided femoral vein puncture was recorded on 74 patients, first attempt 63/74 (85%), second attempt 8/74 (11%) and third attempt 3/74 (4%). Catheter french used: 1.9Fr (n = 80/82), 2.6Fr (n = 1/82), and 3-Fr (n = 1/82). Catheter lengths were 8 to 20 cm, average 12cm. Catheter termination confirmed with posterior/anterior and lateral abdominal radiographs with inferior vena cava (IVC) (n = 33/82), IVC/right atrial junction (n = 31/82), or right atrium (n = 18/82). Atrial placements were retracted; no cases of malposition to the lumbar/renal/hepatic veins (n = 0/82). 1528 catheter days ranging 5 to 72 days (average 18). No insertion-related or post-insertion complications. All patients completed prescribed therapy with one catheter. CONCLUSION: Bedside placement of an ST-FICC is a safe route for central venous access in the NICU, preserving upper extremity vasculature, eliminates risks associated with sedation, fluoroscopy, tunneled and non-tunneled supra-diaphragmatic central venous insertion.

An integrated system for Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter tip confirmation in oncology and haematology patients.

INTRODUCTION: Although there are many methods to confirm vascular device tip, chest x-ray represents the recommended procedure to verify the correct positioning of a central device, but it exposes patients to x-rays, delays treatment, and permits device length to be checked post-procedure. AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter positioning through an Integrated System (ultrasound-guided and electrocardiogram confirmation). METHODS: A case-control study was conducted on a randomized sample of 165 patients, requiring Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter placement for chemotherapy treatment. The case group was composed of patients with vascular device placed through the Integrated System and the control group devices' length was anthropometrically estimated. Chest radiography was performed on both groups to verify tip location. RESULTS: No cases of primary malposition related to the Integrated System were registered. The vascular devices positioned with the Integrated System were all correctly placed and in 91.8% (n=101) the intra-procedural tip location was comparable to the one identified in the x-ray. CONCLUSION: The Integrated System represented a simple and efficient method to correctly place vascular device, allowing intra-procedural tip confirmation and avoiding primary malposition. It would eliminate the need for performing chest radiography, reduce costs and time for healthcare professionals and patients.

Survey of ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous practices: a report of supply usage and variability between clinical roles and departments.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous (UGPIV) supply usage practices by clinicians working in vascular access, in emergency departments (EDs), or in other roles. METHODOLOGY: In 2019, a voluntary cross-sectional descriptive survey was conducted via SurveyMonkey. Data collected included demographics, practice-oriented information, procedural activities, and supplies used for UGPIV insertions. Frequency distributions and results of Fisher's exact test and one-way analysis of variance were reported using R v.3.5.2. RESULTS: A total of 26,649 surveys were distributed with a response rate of 5.5% (n = 1475). Forty-eight percent of respondents (n = 709) indicated that they worked in a vascular access role, 310 (21%) worked in an ED, and 455 (31%) categorized their role as other. Clinically meaningful differences existed in all variables for UGPIV procedures and supplies between departments (P < 0.0001) and in all care settings. Using an investigatorconstructed overall metric of supplies used, important differences were demonstrated between personnel supply use in vascular access roles and other roles (P < 0.0001) and personnel in EDs and other roles (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Use of supplies for UGPIV insertions varies by department. The variability in supply usage for UGPIV insertions revealed by this survey suggests a need for clinical education on guideline application and evaluation of compliance with policies to promote standardization of supplies for UGPIV insertion.

Evaluation of Skin Colonisation And Placement of vascular access device Exit sites (ESCAPE Study).

BACKGROUND: Skin microorganisms may contribute to the development of vascular access device (VAD) infections. Baseline skin microorganism type and quantity vary between body sites, yet there is little evidence to inform choice of VAD site selection. OBJECTIVE: To compare microorganisms present at different body sites used for VAD insertions and understand the effect of transparent dressings on skin microflora. METHODS: The ESCAPE observational study consisted of three phases: (1) skin swabs of four sites (mid-neck, base neck, chest, upper arm) from 48 hospital patients; (2) skin swabs of five body sites (mid-neck, base neck, chest, upper arm, lower arm) from 10 healthy volunteers; and (3) paired skin swabs (n = 72) under and outside of transparent dressings from 36 hospital patients (16 mid/base neck, 10 chest, upper arm). Specimens were cultured for 72 h, species identified and colony-forming units (CFU) counted. Ordinal logistic regression compared CFU categories between variables of interest. RESULTS: The chest and upper arm were significantly associated with fewer microorganisms compared to neck or forearm (odds ratio [OR] = 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.25-0.65, P < 0.05). CFU levels under transparent dressings were not significantly different from outside (OR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.22-1.45). Staphylococci were predominant at all sites. Other significant (P < 0.05) predictors of higher CFU count included prolonged hospitalisation and medical/surgical patient status. DISCUSSION: Skin microorganism load was significantly lower at the upper arm or chest, compared to the mid- or base neck. This may impact VAD site selection and subsequent infection risk.

Vessel Health and Preservation: a model and clinical pathway for using vascular access devices.

Use of intravenous devices for the delivery of medical treatment spans all healthcare facilities ranging from hospitals to clinics and home care. Clinical pathways are processes used by healthcare providers to integrate and illustrate the best evidence and approach to care for a specific area of practice. The Vessel Health and Preservation (VHP) model is a framework and pathway process, consisting of four quadrants, to guide initiation and management of treatment requiring intravenous access. The pathway is designed to promote preservation of the vasculature of patients from admission through discharge with a focus on acute care. This article describes the model and pathway process. Moving through the quadrants of assessment/selection, insertion, management and evaluation of outcomes the clinician receives vascular access education to establish an understanding of the key principles and is then better able to provide care to the patient. Research on the VHP model has found that patients, clinicians and healthcare facilities benefit from the evidence integrated within the VHP model for improved outcomes, greater success with insertion, time saved through improved efficiency, risk reduced through appropriate device discontinuation, and greater patient satisfaction.

Quantitative assessment of reflux in commercially available needle-free IV connectors.

INTRODUCTION: Blood reflux is caused by changes in pressure within intravascular catheters upon connection or disconnection of a syringe or intravenous tubing from a needle-free connector (NFC). Changes in pressure, differing with each brand of NFC, may result in fluid movement and blood reflux that can contribute to intraluminal catheter occlusions and increase the potential for central-line associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI). METHODS: In this study, 14 NFC brands representing each of the four market-categories of NFCs were selected for evaluation of fluid movement occurring during connection and disconnection of a syringe. Study objectives were to 1) theoretically estimate amount of blood reflux volume in microliters (µL) permitted by each NFC based on exact component measurements, and 2) experimentally measure NFC volume of fluid movement for disconnection reflux of negative, neutral and anti-reflux NFC and fluid movement for connection reflux of positive displacement NFC. RESULTS: The results demonstrated fluid movement/reflux volumes of 9.73 µL to 50.34 µL for negative displacement, 3.60 µL to 10.80 µL for neutral displacement, and 0.02 µL to 1.73 µL for pressure-activated anti-reflux NFC. Separate experiment was performed measuring connection reflux of 18.23 µL to 38.83 µL for positive displacement NFC connectors. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed significant differences in reflux volumes for fluid displacement based on NFC design. While more research is needed on effects of blood reflux in catheters and NFCs, results highlight the need to consider NFCs based on performance of individual connector designs, rather than manufacturer designation of positive, negative and neutral marketing categories for NFCs without anti-reflux mechanisms.

CE: Original Research: Does Certification in Vascular Access Matter? An Analysis of the PICC1 Survey.

: Background: Although certification by an accredited agency is often a practice prerequisite in health care, it is not required of vascular access specialists who insert peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). Whether certification is associated with differences in practice among inserters is unknown. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to gather information regarding whether certified and noncertified PICC inserters differ with respect to their practices and views about PICC use. METHODS: We conducted a national survey of vascular access specialists, identifying certified PICC inserters as those who had received board certification from the Association for Vascular Access, the Infusion Nurses Society, or both. The 76-item survey asked about PICC policies and procedures at respondents' facilities, use of insertion technologies, device management, management of complications, perceptions about PICC use, and relationships with other health care providers. Additional data about respondents, including years in practice and primary practice settings, were also gathered. Bivariable comparisons were made using χ tests; two-sided α with P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Of the 1,450 respondents in the final sample, 1,007 (69%) said they were certified inserters and 443 (31%) said they were not. Significantly higher percentages of certified than noncertified inserters reported having practiced for five or more years (78% versus 54%) and having placed 1,000 or more PICCs (58% versus 32%). Significantly more certified than noncertified inserters also reported being the vascular access lead for their facility (56% versus 44%). Reported practice patterns for insertion, care, and management of PICCs varied based on certification status. Some evidence-based practices (such as the use of ultrasound to measure catheter-to-vein ratios) were more often reported by certified inserters, while others (such as the use of maximal sterile barriers during PICC insertion) were not. Asked about their perceptions of PICC use at their institution, certified inserters reported higher percentages of inappropriate insertion and removal than noncertified inserters. CONCLUSION: Certified PICC inserters appear to be a distinct group of vascular access specialists. A better understanding of how and why practices differ between certified and noncertified inserters is necessary to ensuring safer, high-quality patient care.

Report of Modification for Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Placement: Subcutaneous Needle Tunnel for High Upper Arm Placement.

The majority of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are currently inserted with the aid of ultrasound guidance in the middle third of the upper arm. A growing patient population is presenting with challenging vessel access requiring placement of the PICC in the high upper third of the arm. To avoid this suboptimal exit site, a subcutaneous tunneling of the PICC is established away from the axilla to a more appropriate skin exit site. A prospective evaluation was performed in a single facility for all PICC placements from September 2014 to June 2015. Of the results of 685 PICC requests received during the study, 50 (7.2%) were placed with the modified Seldinger tunneling technique with 96% success. There were no reports of increased pain, insertion complications, or therapy failures. Subcutaneous tunneling, when applied to bedside PICC insertions, provides a safe, effective, and cost-efficient option for a select, more challenging patient population.

Management of Central Venous Access Device-Associated Skin Impairment: An Evidence-Based Algorithm.

Patients relying on central venous access devices (CVADs) for treatment are frequently complex. Many have multiple comorbid conditions, including renal impairment, nutritional deficiencies, hematologic disorders, or cancer. These conditions can impair the skin surrounding the CVAD insertion site, resulting in an increased likelihood of skin damage when standard CVAD management practices are employed. Supported by the World Congress of Vascular Access (WoCoVA), developed an evidence- and consensus-based algorithm to improve CVAD-associated skin impairment (CASI) identification and diagnosis, guide clinical decision-making, and improve clinician confidence in managing CASI. A scoping review of relevant literature surrounding CASI management was undertaken March 2014, and results were distributed to an international advisory panel. A CASI algorithm was developed by an international advisory panel of clinicians with expertise in wounds, vascular access, pediatrics, geriatric care, home care, intensive care, infection control and acute care, using a 2-phase, modified Delphi technique. The algorithm focuses on identification and treatment of skin injury, exit site infection, noninfectious exudate, and skin irritation/contact dermatitis. It comprised 3 domains: assessment, skin protection, and patient comfort. External validation of the algorithm was achieved by prospective pre- and posttest design, using clinical scenarios and self-reported clinician confidence (Likert scale), and incorporating algorithm feasibility and face validity endpoints. The CASI algorithm was found to significantly increase participants' confidence in the assessment and management of skin injury (P = .002), skin irritation/contact dermatitis (P = .001), and noninfectious exudate (P < .01). A majority of participants reported the algorithm as easy to understand (24/25; 96%), containing all necessary information (24/25; 96%). Twenty-four of 25 (96%) stated that they would recommend the tool to guide management of CASI.

Patterns and Predictors of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Occlusion: The 3P-O Study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate patterns and predictors of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-related occlusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from a multihospital study were used to examine factors associated with PICC occlusion. Occlusion was defined if documented in the medical record or when tissue plasminogen activator was administered for occlusion-related concerns. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to predict occlusion, controlling for patient-, provider-, device-, and hospital-level characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 14,278 PICCs placed in 13,408 patients were included. Of these, occlusion developed in 1,716 PICCs (12%) in 1,684 patients. The most common indications for PICC insertion were intravenous antibiotic therapy (32.7%), difficult intravenous access (21.5%), and central access (13.7%). PICCs placed in the right arm had decreased odds of occlusion compared with those in the left arm (odds ratio [OR] = 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.72-0.94). Verification of catheter tip position following insertion was associated with reduction in occlusion (OR = 0.75; 95% CI = 0.61-0.92). Although normal saline solution or heparin flushes did not reduce occlusion, PICCs flushed with normal saline solution and "locked" with heparin were less likely to become occluded (OR = 0.54; 95% CI = 0.33-0.88). Compared with single-lumen devices, double- and triple-lumen PICCs were associated with greater incidences of occlusion (double, OR = 3.07; 95% CI = 2.56-3.67; triple, OR = 3.72; 95% CI = 2.92-4.74). Catheter tip malposition was also associated with occlusion (OR = 1.46; 95% CI = 1.14-1.87). CONCLUSIONS: Several patient, provider, and device characteristics appear associated with PICC occlusion. Interventions targeting these factors may prove valuable in reducing this complication.

Indications for peripheral, midline and central catheters: summary of the MAGIC recommendations.

Patients admitted to acute care frequently require intravenous access to effectively deliver medications and prescribed treatment. For patients with difficult intravenous access, those requiring multiple attempts, those who are obese, or have diabetes or other chronic conditions, determining the vascular access device (VAD) with the lowest risk that best meets the needs of the treatment plan can be confusing. Selection of a VAD should be based on specific indications for that device. In the clinical setting, requests for central venous access devices are frequently precipitated simply by failure to establish peripheral access. Selection of the most appropriate VAD is necessary to avoid the potentially serious complications of infection and/or thrombosis. An international panel of experts convened to establish a guide for indications and appropriate usage for VADs. This publication summarises the work and recommendations of the panel for the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC).

Central venous access devices site care practices: an international survey of 34 countries.

PURPOSE: Effective postinsertion management of central venous access devices (CVADs) is important to prevent CVAD-associated complications, including catheter-associated bloodstream infections. Although there is a wealth of evidence-based guidelines available to guide the care of CVADs, applying their recommendations to the clinical setting across variable patient groups, CVAD types and international healthcare settings is challenging. This may result in patients receiving suboptimal care. METHODS: A cross-sectional descriptive study using an online survey was performed with an aim to determine current CVAD site care practices internationally. The CVAD site care domains included skin antisepsis, dressing selection, frequency of dressing change and device securement practices across impaired and unimpaired CVAD sites. RESULTS: Clinicians (n = 1044) residing in 34 countries reported diversity in their practice, with the majority of respondents practicing as nurses (89%) from North America (81%) as vascular access specialists (52%). The respondents' reported practice was variant, with differing inconsistency to guidelines throughout each of the domains. There was wide variance in the management of CVAD sites with impaired skin integrity, such as rash, skin stripping/adhesive-related injuries and drainage. Vascular access clinicians reported high levels of confidence in managing CVAD sites, including those with impaired skin. CONCLUSIONS: These inconsistencies are reflective of the complex and heterogeneous populations requiring CVADs, the evidence available to support practice in this area, the skills and knowledge of the clinicians caring for them and the resources of the healthcare setting. Further research and education is necessary to ensure that CVAD site care is undertaken effectively to minimise preventable complications.

The Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC): Results From a Multispecialty Panel Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

Use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) has grown substantially in recent years. Increasing use has led to the realization that PICCs are associated with important complications, including thrombosis and infection. Moreover, some PICCs may not be placed for clinically valid reasons. Defining appropriate indications for insertion, maintenance, and care of PICCs is thus important for patient safety. An international panel was convened that applied the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to develop criteria for use of PICCs. After systematic reviews of the literature, scenarios related to PICC use, care, and maintenance were developed according to patient population (for example, general hospitalized, critically ill, cancer, kidney disease), indication for insertion (infusion of peripherally compatible infusates vs. vesicants), and duration of use (≤5 days, 6 to 14 days, 15 to 30 days, or ≥31 days). Within each scenario, appropriateness of PICC use was compared with that of other venous access devices. After review of 665 scenarios, 253 (38%) were rated as appropriate, 124 (19%) as neutral/uncertain, and 288 (43%) as inappropriate. For peripherally compatible infusions, PICC use was rated as inappropriate when the proposed duration of use was 5 or fewer days. Midline catheters and ultrasonography-guided peripheral intravenous catheters were preferred to PICCs for use between 6 and 14 days. In critically ill patients, nontunneled central venous catheters were preferred over PICCs when 14 or fewer days of use were likely. In patients with cancer, PICCs were rated as appropriate for irritant or vesicant infusion, regardless of duration. The panel of experts used a validated method to develop appropriate indications for PICC use across patient populations. These criteria can be used to improve care, inform quality improvement efforts, and advance the safety of medical patients.