Safety and efficacy of peripheral versus centrally administered vasopressor infusion: A single-centre retrospective observational study

Pre-hospital 'dirty adrenaline': A descriptive case series of patients receiving peripheral dilute adrenaline infusions in Central Australian remote nurse-led clinics prior to aeromedical retrieval

OBJECTIVES

'Dirty adrenaline' is the informal term used for a rapidly made peripheral dilute adrenaline infusion in the emergency treatment of shock, most commonly 1 mg adrenaline in 1 L 0.9% NaCl. It has long been part of the remote clinician's arsenal despite no supporting scientific literature. Remote clinics in Central Australia can be hours away from critical care support. The region's high prevalence of renal and cardiac disease means that access to early vasopressors and inotropes is a necessity for treating shock. To tackle this, remote clinicians often use 'dirty adrenaline'. We present a review of 'dirty adrenaline' use in this region.

METHODS

Central Australian Retrieval Service's database was screened to identify cases in which a peripheral dilute adrenaline infusion was administered in a remote clinic prior to patient aeromedical retrieval. A retrospective chart review collected: patient demographics; clinical characteristics; infusion details; adverse events; hospital lengths of stay; and mortality outcomes.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven cases were identified. Median patient age was 50 (range: 2-96). Septic shock was the most common clinical indication (40/57). Median infusion duration was 155 min. Median systolic BP from commencement until retrieval increased from 75.5 to 91 mmHg. Survival to hospital discharge was 86% (49/57). No significant adverse events associated with 'dirty adrenaline' were recorded.

CONCLUSION

'Dirty adrenaline' is safe to administer and appears to considerably improve survival when used to treat fluid-resistant shock in remote nurse-led clinics guided by an off-site critical care physician.

Enhancing Sepsis Care at an Academic Emergency Department in a Resource-Constrained Setting: A Quality Improvement Initiative

OBJECTIVES

The early recognition of sepsis and septic shock is crucial for improved patient outcomes. Quality improvement programs have ameliorated processes and outcomes in the care of patients with sepsis and septic shock. This study aimed to improve the proportion of patients receiving antibiotics within 1 hour of triage and compliance with sepsis bundles.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary sepsis task force was created to monitor and improve sepsis care. The program lasted 24 months from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019. A unique screening criterion was created by combining items from the systemic inflammatory response syndrome, quick sequential organ failure assessment, and National Early Warning Score systems. Thereafter, a sepsis flowsheet was implemented in the emergency department for monitoring. The measures between the first 12 months and the last 12 months were compared.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients receiving antibiotics within 1 hour of triage improved from 44% to 84%, intravenous crystalloid administration within 3 hours improved from 62% to 94%, serum lactic acid measurement within 3 hours improved from 62% to 94%, and vasopressor initiation within 6 hours improved from 76% to 94%. The mortality rates decreased from 32% to 21% between the 2 study periods.

CONCLUSIONS

This program emphasizes the impact of a structured quality improvement program on the process and outcomes of care.

[Translated article] Safe administration of noradrenaline by the peripheral route: A systematic review

PURPOSE

To review and analyse the available literature on peripheral administration of noradrenaline (NA) with the aim of providing recommendations to ensure correct use and patient safety.

METHODS

Systematic review on the databases PubMed, ISI Web of Science, SCOPUS, and Science Direct, using the following search terms: ("Noradrenaline" [Mesh]) AND ("Norepinephrine" [Mesh]) AND ("Vasopressors" [Mesh]) AND ("Peripheral infusions" [Mesh]) OR ("Extravasations" [Mesh]). A total of 1040 articles were identified. Animal studies and studies written in languages other than English were excluded. Finally, 83 articles were included.

RESULTS

NA can be administered peripherally. The risk of extravasation should be taken into account, with phentolamine being the first pharmacological line of treatment. It has also been related to the appearance of thrombophlebitis, cellulitis, tissue necrosis, limb ischaemia, and gangrene, although its incidence seems to be low. The use of peripheral NA in children seems to be carried out without obvious complications. The use of standard concentrations is suggested to reduce the risk of errors. It is recommended to use 0.9% saline as the default diluent for peripheral NA.

CONCLUSIONS

Peripheral infusions of NA could be a safe and beneficial option in early resuscitation provided that a number of guidelines are followed that reduce the likelihood of complications associated with this route.

Safe administration of noradrenaline by the peripheral route: A systematic review

PURPOSE

To review and analyze the available literature on peripheral administration of noradrenaline (NA) with the aim of providing recommendations to ensure correct use and patient safety.

METHODS

Systematic review on the databases PubMed, ISI Web of Science, SCOPUS and Science Direct, using the following search terms: ("Noradrenaline" [Mesh]) AND ("Norepinephrine" [Mesh]) AND ("Vasopressors" [Mesh]) AND ("Peripheral infusions" [Mesh]) OR ("Extravasations" [Mesh]). A total of 1,040 articles were identified. Animal studies and studies written in languages other than English were excluded. Finally, 83 articles were included.

RESULTS

NA can be administered peripherally. The risk of extravasation should be taken into account, with phentolamine being the first pharmacological line of treatment. It has also been related to the appearance of thrombophlebitis, cellulitis, tissue necrosis, limb ischemia and gangrene, although its incidence seems to be low. The use of peripheral NA in children seems to be carried out without obvious complications. The use of standard concentrations is suggested to reduce the risk of errors. It is recommended to use 0.9% saline as the default diluent for peripheral NA.

CONCLUSIONS

Peripheral infusions of NA could be a safe and beneficial option in early resuscitation provided that a number of guidelines are followed that reduce the likelihood of complications associated with this route.

Experience of a vascular ultrasound-guided program: from the ICU to the hospital

BACKGROUND

The use of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) has increased worldwide in the last decade. However, PICCs are associated to catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) and central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs). We describe the characteristics of patients requiring a PICC, estimate the incidence rate, and identify potential risk factors of PICC-related complications.

METHODS

All adult patients requiring a PICC at our institution (Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá, Bogota, Colombia) from September 2022 to May 2024 were included in the analysis. The database from active PICC monitoring collected demographic and PICC-related information. The incidence rate of CLABSI and CRT, and crude odds ratios (cORs) were estimated.

RESULTS

Overall, 1936 individuals were included in the study. The median age was 67 years (IQR: 50-78 years), and 51.5% were females. The median duration of PICC lines was 10 days (IQR: 4-17). Seventy-nine patients had catheter-related complications, mostly in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). The CLABSI and CRT institutional incidence rates per 1000 catheter-days were 2.03 (2.96 in the ICU) and 0.58 (0.61 in the ICU), respectively. Prolonged catheter use (≥ 6 days), PICC insertion in the intensive care unit, and postoperative care after cardiac surgery were identified as potential risk factors for CLABSI, while a catheter insertion into the brachial vein was associated with CRT.

CONCLUSION

Daily PICC assessment, particularly in patients with prolonged catheter use, PICC insertion into the brachial vein, or in postoperative care after cardiac surgery may significantly reduce CLABSI and CRT cases. Implementing Vascular Access Teams, venous catheter care bundles, and institutional insertion protocols optimize clinical outcomes.

Development of an Evidence-Based List of Non-Antineoplastic Vesicants: 2024 Update

Infiltration of a vesicant, called extravasation, can result in severe patient injuries. Recognition of vesicants and their relative risk of injury is essential to extravasation prevention, early recognition, and appropriate treatment. In this article, the Vesicant Task Force (VTF) updates the previously published Infusion Nurses Society (INS) vesicant list from 2017. The 2024 INS list diverges from earlier vesicant lists, such as the 2017 VTF list, by adopting a risk stratification approach based upon documented patient outcomes, in contrast to the reliance on expert consensus or only surrogate risk indicators, such as pH and osmolarity. The methodology used to create the updated list is explained, and the criteria for high- and moderate-risk vesicants and cautionary vesicants are defined.

Randomised, controlled, feasibility trial comparing vasopressor infusion administered via peripheral cannula versus central venous catheter for critically ill adults: A study protocol

BACKGROUND

When clinicians need to administer a vasopressor infusion, they are faced with the choice of administration via either peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) or central venous catheter (CVC). Vasopressor infusions have traditionally been administered via central venous catheters (CVC) rather than Peripheral Intra Venous Catheters (PIVC), primarily due to concerns of extravasation and resultant tissue injury. This practice is not guided by contemporary randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence. Observational data suggests safety of vasopressor infusion via PIVC. To address this evidence gap, we have designed the "Vasopressors Infused via Peripheral or Central Access" (VIPCA) RCT.

METHODS

The VIPCA trial is a single-centre, feasibility, parallel-group RCT. Eligible critically ill patients requiring a vasopressor infusion will be identified by emergency department (ED) or intensive care unit (ICU) staff and randomised to receive vasopressor infusion via either PIVC or CVC. Primary outcome is feasibility, a composite of recruitment rate, proportion of eligible patients randomised, protocol fidelity, retention and missing data. Primary clinical outcome is days alive and out of hospital up to day-30. Secondary outcomes will include safety and other clinical outcomes, and process and cost measures. Specific aspects of safety related to vasopressor infusions such as extravasation, leakage, device failure, tissue injury and infection will be assessed.

DISCUSSION

VIPCA is a feasibility RCT whose outcomes will inform the feasibility and design of a multicentre Phase-3 trial comparing routes of vasopressor delivery. The exploratory economic analysis will provide input data for the full health economic analysis which will accompany any future Phase-3 RCT.

Adverse effects related with norepinephrine through short peripheral venous access: Scoping review

Peripheral administration of norepinephrine is restricted due to the association of extravasation with tissue necrosis.

METHOD

Scoping review with the objective of describing the adverse effects related to the administration of norepinephrine through short peripheral venous access and the characteristics of drug administration in patients hospitalized in ICU, surgery, and emergency services.

RESULTS

12 studies with heterogeneous characteristics by size and type of population were included. The proportion of complications associated with peripheral norepinephrine administration was less than 12% in observational studies and it was less than 2% in those that used doses less than 0.13μg/kg/min, and concentrations less than 22.3μg/mL. The main associated complication was extravasation and there were no cases of tissue necrosis at the venipuncture site, some extravasation cases were treated with phentolamine, terbutaline or topical nitroglycerin. The drug administration time ranged between 1 and 528hours with a weighted mean of 2.78h.

CONCLUSION

The main adverse effect was extravasation, no additional complications occurred, phentolamine and terbutaline seem to be useful, and its availability is a necessity. It is essential for the nursing staff to carry out a close assessment and comprehensive care in patients receiving norepinephrine by peripheral route.

The Association of Vasopressor Administration through a Midline Catheter with Catheter-related Complications

Rationale: Little is known about the safety of infusing vasopressors through a midline catheter. Objectives: To evaluate safety outcomes after vasopressor administration through a midline. Methods: We conducted a cohort study of adults admitted to 39 hospitals in Michigan (December 2017-March 2022) who received vasopressors while either a midline or peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) was in place. Patients receiving vasopressors through a midline were compared with those receiving vasopressors through a PICC and, separately, to those with midlines in place but who received vasopressors through a different catheter. We used descriptive statistics to characterize and compare cohort characteristics. Multivariable mixed effects logistic regression models were fit to determine the association between vasopressor administration through a midline with outcomes, primarily catheter-related complications (bloodstream infection, superficial thrombophlebitis, exit site infection, or catheter occlusion). Results: Our cohort included 287 patients with midlines through which vasopressors were administered, 1,660 with PICCs through which vasopressors were administered, and 884 patients with midlines who received vasopressors through a separate catheter. Age (median [interquartile range]: 68.7 [58.6-75.7], 66.6 [57.1-75.0], and 67.6 [58.7-75.8] yr) and gender (percentage female: 50.5%, 47.3%, and 43.8%) were similar in all groups. The frequency of catheter-related complications was lower in patients with midlines used for vasopressors than PICCs used for vasopressors (5.2% vs. 13.4%; P < 0.001) but similar to midlines with vasopressor administration through a different device (5.2% vs. 6.3%; P = 0.49). After adjustment, administration of vasopressors through a midline was not associated with catheter-related complications compared with PICCs with vasopressors (adjusted odds ratios [aOR], 0.65 [95% confidence interval, 0.31-1.33]; P = 0.23) or midlines with vasopressors elsewhere (aOR, 0.85 [0.46-1.58]; P = 0.59). Midlines used for vasopressors were associated with greater risk of systemic thromboembolism (vs. PICCs with vasopressors: aOR, 2.69 [1.31-5.49]; P = 0.008; vs. midlines with vasopressors elsewhere: aOR, 2.42 [1.29-4.54]; P = 0.008) but not thromboses restricted to the ipsilateral upper extremity (vs. PICCs with vasopressors: aOR, 2.35 [0.83-6.63]; P = 0.10; model did not converge for vs. midlines with vasopressors elsewhere). Conclusions: We found no significant association of vasopressor administration through a midline with catheter-related complications. However, we identified increased odds of systemic (but not ipsilateral upper extremity) venous thromboembolism warranting further evaluation.