Update on prevention of intra-vascular accesses complications

A GAVeCeLT consensus on the indication, insertion, and management of central venous access devices in the critically ill

Central venous access devices are essential for the management of critically ill patients, but they are potentially associated with many complications, which may occur during or after insertion. Many evidence-based documents-consensus and guidelines-suggest practical recommendations for reducing catheter-related complications, but they have some limitations. Some documents are not focused on critically ill patients; other documents address only some special strategies, such as the use of ultrasound; other documents are biased by obsolete concepts, inappropriate terminology, and lack of considerations for new technologies and new methods. Thus, the Italian Group of Venous Access Devices (GAVeCeLT) has decided to offer an updated compendium of the main strategies-old and new-that should be adopted for minimizing catheter-related complications in the adult critically ill patient. The project has been planned as a consensus, rather than a guideline, since many issues in this field are relatively recent, and few high-quality randomized clinical studies are currently available, particularly in the area of indications and choice of the device. Panelists were chosen between the Italian vascular access experts who had published papers on peer-reviewed journals about this topic in the last few years. The consensus process was carried out according to the RAND/University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Methodology, a modification of the Delphi method, that is, a structured process for collecting knowledge from groups of experts through a series of questionnaires. The final document has been structured as statements which answer to four major sets of questions regarding central venous access in the critically ill: (1) before insertion (seven questions), (2) during insertion (eight questions), (3) after insertion (three questions), and (4) at removal (three questions).

Central line associated and primary bloodstream infections

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Primary and intravascular catheter-associated bloodstream infections (CA-BSIs) represent an important clinical entity in the intensive care unit (ICU) being associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this review was to examine the recently published data on epidemiology and management of CA-BSI and other primary BSIs specifically within the context of the ICU.

RECENT FINDINGS

In critically ill patients, the pooled prevalence of primary and CA-BSI from contemporary studies was 19.7-40.7% and 26.4-37.3% of all BSIs, respectively. Failure to achieve source control (i.e., removal of catheter in CA-BSI) is associated with higher mortality. Higher severity scores and durations of ICU stay and catheter insertion are well established risk factors for CA-BSI. The use of prevention bundles when inserting a central venous line is able to reduce CA-BSI incidence from 4 to 1.6 episodes per 1000 central venous catheter days. Differential time-to-positivity of paired blood cultures may assist in the diagnosis of CA-BSI.

SUMMARY

Primary BSI is frequently observed in ICU cohorts and has a poor effect on outcome. Surveillance for BSI among patients admitted to ICUs is fundamental to inform healthcare service delivery, design preventive approaches, to track resistance, and detect emerging pathogens.

Evaluation of a closed loop-blood sampling system in intensive care: A pilot randomised controlled trial. The ENCLOSE trial

OBJECTIVE

To test the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the impact of a closed-loop blood sampling system and blood conservation bundle.

METHODS

Single site, parallel group, pilot randomised control trial comparing open system sampling to closed system sampling and conservation bundle aligned with national guidelines. Randomisation sequence was generated by an independent statistician and allocation concealment maintained via sealed opaque envelopes. The study setting was the general intensive care unit of a major metropolitan public hospital in Queensland, Australia. Participants were ≥ 18 years who had an arterial catheter inserted in intensive care. Main outcome measures included trial feasibility, blood sample loss, haematocrit (HCT) change, and packed red blood cell transfusion use.

RESULTS

Eighty patients were randomised (n = 39 open group, n = 41 closed group). Characteristics in each group were equal at baseline with overall median age 60 years (IQR 48.6-70.4), 58 % male, and median APACHE II score 16 (IQR 11-22). The proportion of patients eligible was 29 % and missed eligible was 65 %. Otherwise, feasibility criteria were met with proportion of eligible patients agreeing to enrolment 99 %, 100 % of patients receiving allocated treatment; only 1 % of data missing. Analysis demonstrated a significant reduction in mean daily blood sample losses (open 32.7 (SD 1.58) mL vs closed 15.5 (SD 5.79) mL, t = -8.454, df = 78, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A large, multi-site trial is feasible with enhanced eligibility criteria, increased recruitment support. The intervention reduced daily blood sample volumes and transfusion use. Further trials are required to provide both effectiveness and implementation outcomes.