Are peripherally inserted central catheters associated with increased risk of adverse events in status 1B patients awaiting transplantation on continuous intravenous milrinone?

Disease-State Understanding and Experience of Patients Receiving Continuous Intravenous Inotropic Support as Palliative Therapy: A Multicenter Survey

Background: The use of continuous intravenous inotropic support (CIIS) as palliative therapy in patients with advanced heart failure (HF) has increased over the past decade. CIIS improves New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class but does not impact survival. Objective: The objective of this study was to examine patients' understanding of the therapeutic intent of CIIS, prognostic awareness, and quality of life with CIIS. Design: We conducted a prospective, cross-sectional, multicenter study of patients with advanced HF receiving CIIS as palliative therapy between 2020 and 2022. Settings/Subjects: An investigator-developed survey instrument was administered to outpatients on CIIS in the United States via telephone. Measurements: Survey data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Results: Forty-eight patients, 63% male, 81% African American/Black, with a mean age of 68.9 (standard deviation 12.3) years, participated in this study. The majority of patients responded that they expected CIIS to make them feel better (79%) and increase longevity (75%), but few expected that CIIS would cure their HF (19%). Patients described their overall quality of life on CIIS as not better/worse (19%), somewhat better (46%), and significantly better (35%) and reported high treatment satisfaction (87% were at least somewhat satisfied). Conclusions: In this study, patients report improved quality of life with CIIS as palliative therapy. Patients on CIIS as palliative therapy expected increased survival on CIIS, which is incongruent with current evidence. Further studies on how we can improve care processes so that patients have accurate prognostic and disease-state awareness, and receive goal concordant care, are warranted.

Novel Nebulized Milrinone Formulation for the Treatment of Acute Heart Failure Requiring Inotropic Therapy: A Phase 1 Study

BACKGROUND

Nonintravenous inotropic-delivery options are needed for patients with inotropic-dependent heart failure (HF) to reduce the costs, infections and thrombotic risks associated with chronic central venous catheters and home infusion services.

METHODS

We developed a novel, concentrated formulation of nebulized milrinone for inhalation and evaluated the feasibility, safety and pharmacokinetic profile in a prospective, single-arm, phase I clinical trial. We enrolled 10 patients with stage D HF requiring inotropic therapy during a hospital admission for acute HF. Milrinone 60 mg/4 mL was inhaled via nebulization 3 times daily for 48 hours. The coprimary outcomes were adverse events and pharmacokinetic profiles of inhaled milrinone. Acute changes in hemodynamic parameters were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

A concentrated nebulized milrinone formulation was well tolerated, without hypotensive events, arrhythmias or inhalation-related adverse events requiring discontinuation. Nebulized milrinone produced serum concentrations in the goal therapeutic range with a median plasma milrinone trough concentration of 39 (17-66) ng/mL and a median peak concentration of 207 (134-293) ng/mL. There were no serious adverse events. From baseline to 24 hours, mean pulmonary artery saturation increased (60% ± 7%-65 ± 5%; P = 0.001), and mean cardiac index increased (2.0 ± 0.5 mL/min/1.73m2-2.5 ± 0.1 mL/min/1.73m2; P = 0.001) with nebulized milrinone.

CONCLUSIONS

In a proof-of-concept study, a concentrated, nebulized milrinone formulation for inhalation was safe and produced therapeutic serum milrinone concentrations. Nebulized milrinone was associated with improved hemodynamic parameters of cardiac output in a population with advanced HF. These promising results require further investigation in a longer-term trial in patients with inotrope-dependent advanced HF.

The use of peripherally inserted central catheter reduced the incidence of phlebitis in heart failure patients: A randomized trial

BACKGROUND

During decompensated heart failure, the use of intravenous inotropes can be necessary. With peripheral venous access, prolonged inotrope infusion can cause phlebitis. However, traditional central venous catheters have possible complications. Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) may be an alternative to traditional catheters.

AIM

Our objective was to compare the incidence of phlebitis between patients with PICC and those with peripheral venous access catheter indwelling.

METHODS

In a randomized clinical trial, the patients were randomized to PICC and control groups, with 40 patients in each group. The inclusion criteria were hospitalized patients with advanced heart failure, ejection fraction of <0.45, and platelet count of >50,000/mm3 and current use of continuous intravenous infusion of dobutamine. The patients were randomly assigned to receive a PICC or keep their peripheral venous access. The primary end point was the occurrence of phlebitis.

RESULTS

The PICC and control groups included 40 patients each. The median age was 61.5 years; ejection fraction, 0.24; and dobutamine dose, 7.73 µg/(kg min). Phlebitis occurred in 1 patient (2.5%) in the PICC group and in 38 patients (95.0%) in the control group, with an odds ratio of 0.10% (95% confidence interval: 0.01%-1.60%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, in severe heart failure patients who received intravenous dobutamine, PICC use reduced the incidence of phlebitis when compared to patients with peripheral venous access. Therefore, the PICC use should considered over peripheral venous access for prolonged intravenous therapy in heart failure patients.

The incidence and risk of venous thromboembolism associated with peripherally inserted central venous catheters in hospitalized patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) can be fatal if not treated promptly, and individual studies have reported wide variability in rates of VTE associated with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC). We thus conducted this meta-analysis to investigate the overall incidence and risk of developing PICC-related VTE in hospitalized patients.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases from inception until January 26, 2022. In studies with a non-comparison arm, the pooled incidence of PICC-related VTE was calculated. The pooled odds ratio (OR) was calculated to assess the risk of VTE in the studies that compared PICC to the central venous catheter (CVC). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess methodological quality.

Results

A total of 75 articles (58 without a comparison arm and 17 with), including 109292 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. The overall pooled incidence of symptomatic VTE was 3.7% (95% CI: 3.1–4.4) in non-comparative studies. In the subgroup meta-analysis, the incidence of VTE was highest in patients who were in a critical care setting (10.6%; 95% CI: 5.0–17.7). Meta-analysis of comparative studies revealed that PICC was associated with a statistically significant increase in the odds of VTE events compared with CVC (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.83–3.37; P < 0.01). However, in subgroup analysis stratified by the study design, there was no significant difference in VTE events between the PICC and CVC in randomized controlled trials (OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 0.77–6.74; P = 0.13).

Conclusion

Best practice standards such as PICC tip verification and VTE prophylaxis can help reduce the incidence and risk of PICC-related VTE. The risk-benefit of inserting PICC should be carefully weighed, especially in critically ill patients. Cautious interpretation of our results is important owing to substantial heterogeneity among the studies included in this study.

Continuous Intravenous Inotropic Support for Advanced Heart Failure: Palliative Considerations

The global prevalence of heart failure (HF) is increasing. Advancements in guideline-directed medical and device therapy have resulted in improved survival. Thus, there are more patients living - and living longer - with advanced HF. Only a small proportion of these patients are deemed appropriate for advanced surgical intervention (mechanical circulatory support or heart transplantation), and even if offered, some may decline such interventions if not aligned with their overall goals and values. Therefore, a growing number of patients with advanced HF receive chronic intravenous inotropic support (CIIS) for palliation of symptoms. Despite increased use, clinical evidence supporting use of palliative inotropes remains limited. However, available data suggest improvements in functional class, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) indicators, symptom burden, hemodynamic parameters, and possibly rehospitalization. While initial concerns regarding increased mortality have been assuaged in the modern era of guideline-directed medical therapy, palliative inotropes are certainly not without burden. Risks of infection and medication-related adverse effects, need for routine laboratory monitoring, frequent dressing changes, and presence of a reliable caregiver must be carefully considered prior to initiation. This review addresses pharmacology, guideline recommendations, benefits and burdens, considerations related to hospice and end-of-life care, and future directions of CIIS in advanced HF care.

2019 EACTS Expert Consensus on long-term mechanical circulatory support

Long-term mechanical circulatory support (LT-MCS) is an important treatment modality for patients with severe heart failure. Different devices are available, and many-sometimes contradictory-observations regarding patient selection, surgical techniques, perioperative management and follow-up have been published. With the growing expertise in this field, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) recognized a need for a structured multidisciplinary consensus about the approach to patients with LT-MCS. However, the evidence published so far is insufficient to allow for generation of meaningful guidelines complying with EACTS requirements. Instead, the EACTS presents an expert opinion in the LT-MCS field. This expert opinion addresses patient evaluation and preoperative optimization as well as management of cardiac and non-cardiac comorbidities. Further, extensive operative implantation techniques are summarized and evaluated by leading experts, depending on both patient characteristics and device selection. The faculty recognized that postoperative management is multidisciplinary and includes aspects of intensive care unit stay, rehabilitation, ambulatory care, myocardial recovery and end-of-life care and mirrored this fact in this paper. Additionally, the opinions of experts on diagnosis and management of adverse events including bleeding, cerebrovascular accidents and device malfunction are presented. In this expert consensus, the evidence for the complete management from patient selection to end-of-life care is carefully reviewed with the aim of guiding clinicians in optimizing management of patients considered for or supported by an LT-MCS device.

Pulmonary artery catheter epidemiology of risk in pre-heart-transplant recipients

OBJECTIVE

Central-line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) are a known complication of central venous access. Pulmonary artery catheters (PAC) are frequently used in pre-heart-transplant patients, but the rate of CLABSI in this population is unknown. We sought to estimate the rate of CLABSI and identify factors associated with development of infection in patients actively listed for heart transplantation with a PAC.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

This study was conducted in 3 intensive care units at an academic tertiary-care center in Minnesota.

PATIENTS

61 pre-heart-transplant patients in an intensive care unit with a PAC in place from January 2013 to December 2016, totaling 219 PACs.

METHODS

At-risk patients, pertinent risk factors, and demographic data were obtained using Mayo Clinic's Unified Data Platform. CLABSIs were identified through internal infection prevention and control data. Characteristics of PAC use and infection rate were collected and analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimates and time-dependent Cox models.

RESULTS

Among pre-heart-transplant patients with a PAC, there were 14 CLABSIs, for an infection rate of 5.46 of 1,000 PAC days (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.98-9.15). The most common causative organism was coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (79%). In unadjusted analyses, CLABSI was associated with shorter time to transplant (hazard ratio [HR], 2.49; P = .027), but not mortality (HR, 1.79; P = .355).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of CLABSI with PAC is high. Prolonged PAC use in the pre-heart-transplant population should be revisited.

Ambulatory Inotrope Infusions in Advanced Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to systematically review the available evidence of risks and benefits of ambulatory intravenous inotrope therapy in advanced heart failure (HF).

BACKGROUND

Ambulatory inotrope infusions are sometimes offered to patients with advanced Stage D HF; however, an understanding of the relative risks and benefits is lacking.

METHODS

On August 7, 2016, we searched SCOPUS, Web of Science, Ovid EMBASE, and Ovid MEDLINE for studies of long-term use of intravenous inotropes in outpatients with advanced HF. Meta-analysis was performed using random effects models.

RESULTS

A total of 66 studies (13 randomized controlled trials and 53 observational studies) met inclusion criteria. Most studies were small and at high risk for bias. Pooled rates of death (41 studies), all-cause hospitalization (15 studies), central line infection (13 studies), and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks (3 studies) of inotropes were 4.2, 22.2, 3.6, and 2.4 per 100 person-months follow-up, respectively. Improvement in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class was greater in patients taking inotropes than in controls (mean difference of 0.60 NYHA functional classes; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22 to 0.98; p = 0.001; 5 trials). There was no significant difference in mortality risk in those taking inotropes compared with controls (pooled risk ratio: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.40 to 1.17; p = 0.16; 9 trials). Data were too limited to pool for other outcomes or to stratify by indication (i.e., bridge-to-transplant or palliative).

CONCLUSIONS

High-quality evidence for the risks and benefits of ambulatory inotrope infusions in advanced HF is limited, particularly when used for palliation. Available data suggest that inotrope therapy improves NYHA functional class and does not impact survival.

Infections, Arrhythmias, and Hospitalizations on Home Intravenous Inotropic Therapy

Inotropes improve symptoms in advanced heart failure (HF) but were associated with higher mortality in clinical trials. Recurrent hospitalizations, arrhythmias, and infections contribute to morbidity and mortality, but the risks of these complications with modern HF therapies are not well known. We collected arrhythmia, infection, and hospitalization data on 197 patients discharged from our institution from January 2007 to March 2013 on intravenous inotropes. Patients were followed until they died, received a transplant or left ventricular assist device, were weaned off inotropes, or remained on inotropes at the end of the study. All patients had stage D HF. At baseline, 30% had a history of ventricular tachycardia, 7.1% had a history of cardiac arrest, and 39% had a history of atrial fibrillation. During follow-up, 33 patients (17%) had one or more implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks. Of patients who had shocks, 27 patients (82%) had appropriate shocks for ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation, 3 patients (9%) had inappropriate shocks, and 3 patients (9%) had both appropriate and inappropriate shocks. The risk of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shock was not related to dose of inotrope (p = 0.605). Fifty-seven patients (29%) had one or more infections during follow-up. Bacteremia was the most common type of infection. Implanted electrophysiology devices did not confer an increased risk of infection. One hundred twelve patients (57%) had one or more hospitalizations during follow-up. Common causes of hospitalizations were worsening HF symptoms (41%), infections (20%), and arrhythmias (12%). In conclusion, arrhythmias, infections, and rehospitalizations are important complications of inotropic therapy.

The Association Between PICC Use and Venous Thromboembolism in Upper and Lower Extremities

BACKGROUND

Peripherally inserted central catheters are associated with upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis. Whether they also are associated with lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism is unknown. We examined the risk of venous thromboembolism in deep veins of the arm, leg, and chest after peripherally inserted central catheter placement.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of 76,242 hospitalized medical patients from 48 Michigan hospitals. Peripherally inserted central catheter presence, comorbidities, venous thrombosis risk factors, and thrombotic events within 90 days from hospital admission were ascertained by phone and record review. Cox proportional hazards models were fit to examine the association between peripherally inserted central catheter placement and 90-day hazard of upper- and lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, adjusting for patient-level characteristics and natural clustering within hospitals.

RESULTS

A total of 3790 patients received a peripherally inserted central catheter during hospitalization. From hospital admission to 90 days, 876 thromboembolic events (208 upper-extremity deep vein thromboses, 372 lower-extremity deep vein thromboses, and 296 pulmonary emboli) were identified. After risk adjustment, peripherally inserted central catheter use was independently associated with all-cause venous thromboembolism (hazard ratio [HR], 3.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.59-3.85), upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis (HR, 10.49; 95% CI, 7.79-14.11), and lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.02-2.15). Peripherally inserted central catheter use was not associated with pulmonary embolism (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.86-2.06). Results were robust to sensitivity analyses incorporating receipt of pharmacologic prophylaxis during hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

Peripherally inserted central catheter use is associated with upper- and lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis. Weighing the thrombotic risks conferred by peripherally inserted central catheters against clinical benefits seems necessary.