Between the lines: The 50th anniversary of long-term central venous catheters

Optimizing Intravenous Access for Long-Term Parenteral Nutrition

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Securing safe and effective intravenous (IV) access is of utmost importance for administering parenteral nutrition (PN). Sustaining this access can indeed pose challenges, especially when dealing with the risk of complications associated with long-term PN. This review emphasizes best practices to optimize intravenous access and reviews the current evidence-based recommendations and consensus guidelines.

RECENT FINDINGS

An individualized approach when selecting central venous catheters (CVC) is recommended, considering the estimated duration of need for IV access and the number of lumens needed. Established and novel approaches to minimize complications, including infection and thrombosis, are recognized. These include placement and positioning of the catheter tip under sonographic guidance and the use of antimicrobial lock therapies. Moreover, when possible, salvaging CVCs can reduce the risk of vascular access loss. CVC selection for patients requiring PN depends on several factors. Carefully reviewing an individual patient's clinical characteristics and discussing options is important. Given the increased infection risk, CVC lumens should be minimized. For long-term PN beyond 6 months, using CVCs with skin barriers and larger diameters should be considered.

A six-year study of complications related to peripherally inserted central catheters: A multi-center retrospective cohort study in China

OBJECTIVE

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), the most frequent central venous catheter, are used to provide medical treatments, although long-term PICC-related adverse outcomes are unknown in China. This study systematically investigated PICC-related complications in four Chinese hospitals.

METHODS

Between January 2014 and January 2020, we analyzed the results of 3550 patients with PICC who were referred to four Chinese hospitals. All patients underwent PICC treatment in four Chinese hospitals. Patient-reported signs and symptoms of a putative PICC-related complication or functional were studied. Long-term outcomes and hospitalization costs were also evaluated.

RESULTS

An aggregate of 3285 patients were enrolled in the analytic cohort. 58.6% were females and 41.4% were males. The most common reasons for PICC placement included oncologic malignancy and critically ill patients. The majority of PICCs had valved systems (90.7%) and were implanted in the right side (85.5%) and into the basilic vein (87.7%). At least one potential PICC-related problem or adverse effects (AEs) was reported by 67.3% of patients. Central line-associated bloodstream infection (28.1%) and symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (20.7%) were the most common complications. The majority of PICCs were removed for causes other than AEs, with just 723 reported AEs accounting for 22.0% of all PICC removals. The most reasons for PICCs removal were occlusion (425, 12.9%) and exit-site infections (189, 5.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first retrospective study in our country to explore PICC-related complications. While living with a PICC, more than 67.3% of patients report signs and symptoms of at least one PICC-related problem or adverse impacts, such as difficulties with PICC use and poor effects on physical and social function. In this group, PICCs are safe and effective, although the danger of PICC-related problems should not be disregarded.

Comparing peripherally inserted central catheter-related practices across hospitals with different insertion models: a multisite qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) provide reliable intravenous access for delivery of parenteral therapy. Yet, little is known about PICC care practices or how they vary across hospitals. We compared PICC-related processes across hospitals with different insertion delivery models.

METHODS

We used a descriptive qualitative methodology and a naturalist philosophy, with site visits to conduct semistructured interviews completed between August 2018 and January 2019. Study sites included five Veterans Affairs Medical Centres, two with vascular access teams (VATs), two with PICC insertion primarily by interventional radiology (IR) and one without on-site PICC insertion capability. Interview participants were healthcare personnel (n=56), including physicians, bedside and vascular access nurses, and IR clinicians. Data collection focused on four PICC domains: use and decision-making process, insertion, in-hospital management and patient discharge education. We used rapid analysis and a summary matrix to compare practices across sites within each domain.

RESULTS

Our findings highlight the benefits of dedicated VATs across all PICC-related process domains, including implementation of criteria to guide PICC placement decisions, timely PICC insertion, more robust management practices and well-defined patient discharge education. We also found areas with potential for improvement, such as clinician awareness of PICC appropriateness criteria and alternative devices, deployment of VATs and patient discharge education.

CONCLUSION

Vascular access nurses play critical roles in all aspects of PICC-related care. There is variation in PICC decision-making, care and maintenance, and patient education across hospitals. Quality and safety improvement opportunities to reduce this variation are highlighted.

A comparison of hydrophobic polyurethane and polyurethane peripherally inserted central catheter: results from a feasibility randomized controlled trial

Background

To evaluate the feasibility of an efficacy trial comparing a hydrophobic polyurethane peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) with a standard polyurethane PICC.

Methods

This pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) was conducted between May 2017 and February 2018. Adult participants (n = 111) were assigned to hydrophobic polyurethane PICC with proximal valve (intervention) or a polyurethane PICC with external clamp (standard care). Primary outcome was trial feasibility including PICC failure. Secondary outcomes were central line-associated bloodstream infection, local infection, occlusion, thrombosis, fracture and dislodgement, phlebitis, local or systemic allergic reaction, and PICC dwell time.

Results

All feasibility outcomes were achieved, apart from eligibility criteria. In total, 338 patients were screened, 138 were eligible (41%), and of these 111 were randomised (80%). Patients received the allocated PICC in 106 (95%) insertions. No patients withdrew from the study and there was no missing data. PICC failure was 24% (13/55) in the intervention group and 22% (12/55) in the standard care group (p = 0.820). PICC failure per 1000 PICC days was 16.3 in the intervention group and 18.4 in the control group (p = 0.755). The average dwell time was 12 days in the intervention and 8 days in the control group.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates the feasibility of an efficacy trial of PICC materials in an adult population, once adjustments were made to include not only in-patients, but also patients being discharged to the Hospital in the Home service.

Trial registration

Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616001578493. Prospectively registered on 16 November 2016. The trial protocol was published a priori (Kleidon et al., Vasc Access 3:15–21, 2017).

Patient-reported complications related to peripherally inserted central catheters: a multicentre prospective cohort study

Objective

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) are frequently used to deliver medical therapies, but our knowledge regarding PICC-related complications remains incomplete. The objective of this study was to systematically elicit and characterise PICC-related complications as experienced by patients during and after hospitalisation.

Design

Prospective cohort study.

Setting

Inpatient medical units at four US hospitals in two states.

Participants

Consecutive sample of patients who had a new PICC placed during a hospital stay between August 2015 and May 2017.

Main outcome(s)

Patient-reported signs and symptoms of a possible PICC-related complication or functional issues.

Results

Of the 438 patients in the analytic cohort (91.4% of those consented), two-thirds were male with a mean age of 56 years. The most common reason for PICC placement was long-term antibiotic therapy (43.4%). During the 70-day follow-up period, 61.4% of patients reported signs of at least one complication, including potentially serious complications, such as bloodstream infection (17.6%) and deep vein thrombosis (30.6%). Correspondence of these reported events with medical record documentation of the complication was generally low. More than one-quarter (27.9%) of patients reported minor complications, such as insertion site redness, discomfort or difficult removal. While the PICC was in place, 26.0% reported restrictions in activities of daily living, 14.4% social activity restrictions and 19.2% had difficulty with flushing or operating the PICC.

Conclusion

Over 60% of patients report signs or symptoms of a possible complication or adverse effect after PICC placement. Bothersome complications from the patient perspective are clearly more common than those that typically rise to the level of healthcare provider attention or concern. Understanding the patient experience is critical for providing safe and effective care.

Antithrombogenic peripherally inserted central catheters: overview of efficacy and safety

INTRODUCTION

Thrombotic complications associated with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are common, as most synthetic materials when placed in the presence of serum often result in platelet activation, fibrin deposition, thrombotic occlusion, and potentially embolization. A current innovation focus has been the development of antithrombogenic catheter materials, including hydrophilic and hydrophobic surfaces. These are being incorporated into PICCs in an attempt to prevent the normal thrombotic cascade leading to patient harm.

AREAS COVERED

This review focuses on the laboratory efficacy and clinical effectiveness of antithrombogenic PICCs to prevent PICC-associated thrombosis, as well as their efficiency and safety. This synthesis was informed by a systematic identification of published and unpublished laboratory and clinical studies evaluating these technologies.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

A range of PICCs have been developed with antithrombogenic claims, using varying technologies. However, to date, there is no peer-reviewed laboratory research describing the individual PICCs' effectiveness. Despite promising early clinical trials, adequately powered trials to establish efficacy, effectiveness, efficiency, and safety of all of the individual products have not yet been undertaken.