Clinical Practices in Central Venous Catheter Mechanical Adverse Events.

Background: Over 5 million central venous catheters (CVCs) are placed annually. Pneumothorax and catheter malpositioning are common adverse events (AE) that requires attention. This study aims to evaluate local practices of mechanical complication frequency, type, and subsequent intervention(s) related to mechanical AE with an emphasis on catheter malpositioning. Methods: This is a retrospective review of CVC placements in a tertiary hospital setting from 1/2013 to 12/2013. Pneumothorax and CVC positioning were evaluated on post-insertion chest x-ray (CXR). Malposition was defined as unintended placement of the catheter in a vessel other than the intended superior vena cava on CXR. Catheter reposition was defined as radiographic evidence of a new catheter with removal of the old catheter less than 24hrs after initial placement. Data points analyzed included pneumothorax and thoracostomy rate, CVC malposition frequency, catheter reposition rate, catheter duration, and incidence of complications such as catheter associated venous thrombosis. Result: Among 2045 eligible CVC insertions, pneumothoraces occurred in 14 (0.7%; 95%CI 0.38, 1.17) and malpositions were identified in 275 (13.4%; 95% CI 12.3, 15.3). The proportion of pneumothoraces that required tube thoracostomy was 57%. The proportion of CVCs with malposition that were removed or replaced within 24h was 32.7%. "Malpositioned" catheters that were left in place by the clinical team (n = 185) had an average catheter duration of 8.2 days (95% CI 7.2, 9.3) versus 7.2 days (95% CI 6.17, 8.23) for catheters that were replaced after initial malposition (p = 0.14, t test). The incidence of venous thrombosis in repositioned "malpositioned" catheters was 7.8% versus 4.9% for "malpositioned" catheters that were left in place. Conclusions: Clinically significant catheter malposition and pneumothorax after CVC insertion are low. In this study, replaced and non-replaced "malpositioned" catheters had similar catheter duration and rates of complications, challenging the current dogma of CVC malposition practice.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Central Venous Catheter Confirmation by Bedside Ultrasound Versus Chest Radiography in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the accuracy of bedside ultrasound for confirmation of central venous catheter position and exclusion of pneumothorax compared with chest radiography. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, reference lists, conference proceedings and ClinicalTrials.gov. STUDY SELECTION: Articles and abstracts describing the diagnostic accuracy of bedside ultrasound compared with chest radiography for confirmation of central venous catheters in sufficient detail to reconstruct 2 × 2 contingency tables were reviewed. Primary outcomes included the accuracy of confirming catheter positioning and detecting a pneumothorax. Secondary outcomes included feasibility, interrater reliability, and efficiency to complete bedside ultrasound confirmation of central venous catheter position. DATA EXTRACTION: Investigators abstracted study details including research design and sonographic imaging technique to detect catheter malposition and procedure-related pneumothorax. Diagnostic accuracy measures included pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fifteen studies with 1,553 central venous catheter placements were identified with a pooled sensitivity and specificity of catheter malposition by ultrasound of 0.82 (0.77-0.86) and 0.98 (0.97-0.99), respectively. The pooled positive and negative likelihood ratios of catheter malposition by ultrasound were 31.12 (14.72-65.78) and 0.25 (0.13-0.47). The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound for pneumothorax detection was nearly 100% in the participating studies. Bedside ultrasound reduced mean central venous catheter confirmation time by 58.3 minutes. Risk of bias and clinical heterogeneity in the studies were high. CONCLUSIONS: Bedside ultrasound is faster than radiography at identifying pneumothorax after central venous catheter insertion. When a central venous catheter malposition exists, bedside ultrasound will identify four out of every five earlier than chest radiography.

Infection prevention in the emergency department.

Infection prevention remains a major challenge in emergency care. Acutely ill and injured patients seeking evaluation and treatment in the emergency department (ED) not only have the potential to spread communicable infectious diseases to health care personnel and other patients, but are vulnerable to acquiring new infections associated with the care they receive. This article will evaluate these risks and review the existing literature for infection prevention practices in the ED, ranging from hand hygiene, standard and transmission-based precautions, health care personnel vaccination, and environmental controls to strategies for preventing health care-associated infections. We will conclude by examining what can be done to optimize infection prevention in the ED and identify gaps in knowledge where further research is needed. Successful implementation of evidence-based practices coupled with innovation of novel approaches and technologies tailored specifically to the complex and dynamic environment of the ED are the keys to raising the standard for infection prevention and patient safety in emergency care.

Implementation of ultrasound after central venous catheter insertion: A qualitative study in early adopters.

BACKGROUND: The adoption rate of point of care ultrasound (POCUS) for the confirmation of central venous catheter (CVC) positioning and exclusion of post procedure pneumothorax is low despite advantages in workflow compared to traditional chest X-ray (CXR). To explore why, we convened focus groups to address barriers and facilitators of implementation for POCUS guided CVC confirmation and de-implementation of post-procedure CXR. METHODS: We conducted focus groups with emergency medicine and critical care providers to discuss current practices in POCUS for CVC confirmation. The semi-structured focus group interview guide was informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We performed qualitative content analysis of the resulting transcripts using a consensual qualitative research approach (NVivo software), aiming to identify priority categories that describe the barriers and facilitators of POCUS guided CVC confirmation. RESULTS: The coding dictionary of barriers and facilitators consisted of 21 codes from the focus group discussions. Our qualitative analysis revealed that 12 codes emerged spontaneously (inductively) within the focus group discussions and aligned directly to CFIR constructs. Common barriers included provider influences (e.g. knowledge and beliefs about POCUS for CVC confirmation), external network (e.g. societal guidelines, ancillary staff, and consultants), and inertia (habit or reflexive processes). Common facilitators included ultrasound protocol advantage and champions. Time and provider outcomes (cognitive offload, ownership, and independence) emerged as early barriers but late facilitators. CONCLUSION: Our qualitative analysis demonstrates real and perceived barriers against implementation of POCUS for CVC position confirmation and pneumothorax exclusion. Our findings discovered organizational and personal constructs that will inform development of multifaceted strategies toward implementation of POCUS after CVC insertion.

Central Venous Catheter Adverse Events Are not Associated with Crowding Indicators.

OBJECTIVE: Crowding in the emergency department (ED) impacts a number of important quality and safety metrics. We studied ED crowding measures associated with adverse events (AE) resulting from central venous catheters (CVC) inserted in the ED, as well as the relationship between crowding and the frequency of CVC insertions in an ED cohort admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study from 2008-2010 in an academic tertiary care center. Participants undergoing CVC in the ED or admitted to an ICU were categorized by quartile based on the following: National Emergency Department Overcrowding Scale (NEDOCS); waiting room patients (WR); ED patients awaiting inpatient beds (boarders); and ED occupancy (EDO). Main outcomes were the occurrence of an AE during CVC insertion in the ED, and deferred procedures assessed by frequency of CVC insertions in ED patients admitted to the ICU. RESULTS: Of 2,284 ED patients who had a CVC inserted, 293 (13%) suffered an AE. There was no association between AEs from ED CVCs and crowding scales when comparing the highest crowding level or quartile to all other quartiles: NEDOCS (dangerous crowding [13.1%] vs other levels [13.0%], P = 0.98); number of WR patients (14.0% vs 12.7%, P = 0.81); EDO (13.0% vs 12.9%, P = 0.99); and number of boarding patients (12.0% vs 13.3%), P = 0.21). In a cohort of ED patients admitted to the ICU, there was no association between CVC placement rates in the ED and crowding scales comparing the highest vs all other quartiles: NEDOCS (dangerous crowding 16% vs all others 16%, P = 0.97); WR patients (16% vs 16%, P = 0.82), EDO (15% vs. 17%, P = 0.15); and number of boarding patients (17% vs 16%, P = 0.08). CONCLUSION: In a large, academic tertiary-care center, frequency of CVC insertion in the ED and related AEs were not associated with measures of crowding. These findings add to the evidence that the negative effects of crowding, which impact all ED patients and measures of ED performance, are less likely to impair the delivery of prioritized time-critical interventions.

Point-of-care Ultrasound-guided Central Venous Catheter Confirmation in Ultrasound Nonexperts.

OBJECTIVE: Emerging evidence suggests that chest radiography (CXR) following central venous catheter (CVC) placement is unnecessary when point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is used to confirm catheter position and exclude pneumothorax. However, few providers have adopted this practice, and it is unknown what contributing factors may play a role in this lack of adoption, such as ultrasound experience. The objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS to confirm CVC position and exclude a pneumothorax after brief education and training of nonexperts. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study in a single academic medical center to determine the diagnostic characteristics of a POCUS-guided CVC confirmation protocol after brief training performed by POCUS nonexperts. POCUS nonexperts (emergency medicine senior residents and critical care fellows) independently performed a POCUS-guided CVC confirmation protocol after a 30-minute didactic training. The primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy of the POCUS-guided CVC confirmation protocol for malposition and pneumothorax detection. Secondary outcomes were efficiency and feasibility of adequate image acquisition, adjudicated by POCUS experts. RESULTS: Twenty-six POCUS nonexperts collected data on 190 patients in the final analysis. There were five (2.5%) CVC malpositions and six (3%) pneumothoraxes on CXR. The positive likelihood ratios of POCUS for malposition detection and pneumothorax were 12.33 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.26 to 46.69) and 3.41 (95% CI = 0.51 to 22.76), respectively. The accuracy of POCUS for pneumothorax detection compared to CXR was 0.93 (95% CI = 0.88 to 0.96) and the sensitivity was 0.17 (95% CI = 0.00 to 0.64). The median (interquartile range) time for CVC confirmation was lower for POCUS (9 minutes [8.5-9.5 minutes]) compared to CXR (29 minutes [1-269 minutes]; Mann-Whitney U, p < 0.01). Adequate protocol image acquisition was achieved in 76% of the patients. CONCLUSION: Thirty-minute training of POCUS in nonexperts demonstrates adequate diagnostic accuracy, efficiency, and feasibility of POCUS-guided CVC position confirmation, but not exclusion of pneumothorax.

Current Practices in Central Venous Catheter Position Confirmation by Point of Care Ultrasound: A Survey of Early Adopters.

PURPOSE: Although routine chest radiographs (CXR) to verify correct central venous catheter (CVC) position and exclude pneumothorax are commonly performed, emerging evidence suggests that this practice can be replaced by point of care ultrasound (POCUS). POCUS is advantageous over CXR because it avoids radiation while verifying correct placement and lack of pneumothorax without delay. We hypothesize that a knowledge translation gap exists in this area. We aim to describe the current clinical practice regarding POCUS alone for CVC position confirmation and pneumothorax exclusion as compared with chest radiography. METHODS: We used a modified Dillman technique to conduct a brief web-based survey to Critical Care Medicine and Emergency Medicine physicians (targeted group of early adopters) evaluating the current practice related to CVC position confirmation and PTX exclusion via CXR or POCUS. RESULTS: Of 200 post-training clinicians contacted, 136 (68%) responded to the survey. For routine CVC confirmation and PTX evaluation, 50.7% of Critical Care Medicine physicians and 65.4% of Emergency Medicine physicians reported using CXR alone while 49.3% and 33.1% respectively reported using CXR and ultrasound together. Though 84.6% of clinicians use ultrasound for CVC insertion "most of the time" or "always," none use ultrasound alone for CVC position confirmation, and only 1% has used ultrasound alone for PTX exclusion. CONCLUSIONS: Though data support its utility and advantages for POCUS as a sole modality for CVC position confirmation and PTX evaluation, POCUS is rarely used for this indication. We identified several perceived barriers toward widespread utilization suggesting areas for dissemination and implementation strategy development that will benefit patient care practices.