Proficiency With Vascular Access

Securement to Prevent Noncuffed Central Venous Catheter Dislodgement in Pediatrics: The SECURED Superiority Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Catheter dislodgement is a common complication for children with tunneled or peripherally inserted noncuffed central venous catheters (CVCs). A subcutaneous anchor securement system (SASS) may reduce this risk compared with traditional adhesive securement.

Objective

To compare dislodgement of noncuffed CVCs secured with SASS with dislodgement of noncuffed CVCs secured with sutureless securement devices (SSDs).

Design, Setting, and Participants

The SECURED (Securing Central Venous Catheters to Prevent Dislodegment) trial was a pragmatic, multicenter, superiority randomized clinical trial with an internal pilot and was conducted from August 5, 2020, to August 30, 2022, at 2 Australian quaternary pediatric hospitals. Data analysis was performed in January 2023. Patients aged 0 to 18 years requiring a noncuffed CVC (≥3F catheter) were eligible for inclusion. Follow-up duration was 8 weeks or until device removal.

Interventions

Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive an SASS or SSD, stratified by hospital and catheter type. Only 1 catheter was studied per patient.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was dislodgement (partial or total), defined as movement of the catheter tip by greater than 1 cm (change in external catheter length) at any point during catheter dwell. Dislodgement, reported as a risk ratio (RR), was estimated using a generalized linear model with binomial family and log link. Secondary outcomes were reported as incidence rate ratios and were analyzed using Poission regression. Outcomes reported as mean differences (MDs) were analyzed using linear regression.

Results

Of 310 randomized patients, 175 patients (56.5%) were male and median (IQR) patient age was 48 (16-120) months. A total of 307 patients had a catheter device inserted, of which 153 (49.8%) were SASS and 154 (50.2%) were SSD, and were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Device dislodgement was lower with SASS (8 dislodgements in 153 patients [5.2%]) compared with SSD (35 dislodgements in 154 patients [22.7%]) (RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.11-0.48; P < .001). The per-protocol analysis was consistent with the ITT analysis. Partial dislodgement accounted for most dislodgement events, including 6 partial dislodgements in the SASS group (3.9%) and 30 partial dislodgements in the SSD group (19.5%) (RR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.08-0.42). This contributed to fewer complications during dwell in the SASS group (37 reported complications [24.2%]) vs the SSD group (60 reported complications [39.0%]) (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44-0.87). Staff reported greater difficulty removing devices anchored with SASS vs SSD (mean [SD], 29.1 [31.3] vs 5.3 [17.0], respectively; MD, 23.8; 95% CI, 16.7-31.0). However, use of SASS resulted in reduced per-participant health care costs of A$36.60 (95% credible interval, 4.25-68.95; US $24.36; 95% credible interval, 2.83-45.89).

Conclusions and Relevance

In the SECURED trial, noncuffed CVCs secured with SASS had fewer dislodgements compared with SSDs, with a lower cost per patient and an acceptable safety profile. Future efforts should be directed at SASS implementation at the health service level.

Trial Registration

anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12620000783921.

Design and baseline results of a coaching intervention for implementation of trans-radial access in percutaneous coronary intervention

Trans-radial artery access (TRA) for cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention has many advantages over trans-femoral artery access (TFA), but implementation has been slow. The steep learning curve, logistical issues, and radiation exposure have been documented as barriers to implementation. Although many cardiac catheterization laboratories have overcome these barriers, we lack evidence on effective implementation strategies. Our objective is to test a team-based coaching intervention that targets the learning curve and other barriers to increase use of TRA. We use a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial to test a coaching intervention in Department of Veterans Affairs cardiac catheterization laboratories. The coaching intervention comprises team-based didactic instruction with live observation at a TRA-proficient lab, followed by a visit from a cardiologist and catheterization laboratory nurse coaching team. Interview and survey data are collected from participants to test and adapt an implementation science framework known as the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework. This study is designed to test the effectiveness of the coaching intervention on TRA implementation, inform changes to the coaching intervention itself, and test and adapt the PARIHS framework in practice. While the benefits of TRA, including increased clinical efficiency, patient comfort, and reduced patient complications, are well understood, the underlying drivers of TRA adoption and sustained practice are not. Findings from this trial can inform future research to facilitate change in the cardiac catheterization laboratory.

Comparison of midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters to reduce the need for general anesthesia in children with respiratory disease: A feasibility randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The optimal intravenous device for antibiotic administration for children with respiratory disease is uncertain. We assessed the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial comparing midline catheters with peripherally inserted central catheters.

METHODS

Prospective, two-arm, feasibility randomized controlled trial in an Australian tertiary, pediatric hospital. Random assignment of 110 children (<18 years) to receive (i) midline catheter and (ii) peripherally inserted central catheters. Primary outcome was feasibility (eligibility, recruitment, retention, protocol adherence, and acceptability), and the primary clinical outcome was general anesthesia requirement for intravenous catheter insertion.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

insertion time, treatment delays, infusion efficiency, device failure, complications, and cost.

RESULTS

There was 80% recruitment, 100% retention, no missing data, and high patient/staff acceptability. Mean patient experience assessed on a 0-10 numeric rating scale was 8.0 peripherally inserted central catheters and 9.0 (midline catheters), respectively. Participant eligibility was not achieved (49% of screened patients) and moderate protocol-adherence across groups (89% peripherally inserted central catheters vs. 76% midline catheter). Insertion of midline catheter for pulmonary optimization reduced the requirement for general anesthesia compared to peripherally inserted central catheters (10% vs. 69%; odds ratio = 0.01, 95% confidence interval: 0.00-0.09). Midline catheters failed more frequently (18.1 vs. 5.5 peripherally inserted central catheters per 1000 catheter-days); however, this reduced over trial duration. Midline catheter insertion compared to peripherally inserted central catheters saved AUD$1451 per pulmonary optimization episode.

CONCLUSIONS

An efficacy trial is feasible with expanded eligibility criteria and intensive staff training when introducing a new device. Midline catheter for peripherally compatible infusions is acceptable to patients and staff, might negate the need for general anesthesia and results in significant cost savings.

Radial Approach Expertise and Clinical Outcomes of Percutanous Coronary Interventions Performed Using Femoral Approach

We sought to evaluate the impact of experience and proficiency with radial approach (RA) on clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) performed via femoral approach (FA) in the “real-world” national registry. A total of 539 invasive cardiologists performing PCIs in 151 invasive cardiology centers in Poland between 2014 and 2017 were included. Proficiency threshold was set at >300 PCIs during four consecutive years per individual operator. The majority of operators performed >75% of all PCIs via RA (449 (65.4%)), 143 (20.8%) in 50–75% of cases, 62 (9.0%) in 25–50% and only 33 (4.8%) invasive cardiologists were using RA in <25% of all PCIs. Operators with the highest proficiency in RA were associated with increased risk of periprocedural death, stroke and bleeding complications at access site during angiography via FA. Similarly, higher prevalence of periprocedural mortality during PCI with FA was observed in most experienced radial operators as compared to other groups. The detrimental effect of FA utilization by the most experienced radial operators was observed in both stable angina and acute coronary syndromes. Higher experience and utilization of RA might be linked to worse outcomes of PCIs performed via femoral artery in both stable and acute settings.

Increased Radial Access Is Not Associated With Worse Femoral Outcomes for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND

The radial artery is increasingly adopted as the primary access site for cardiac catheterization because of patient preference, lower bleeding rates, cost effectiveness, and reduced risk of mortality in high-risk patient groups. Concerns have been expressed that operators/centers have become increasingly unfamiliar with transfemoral access. The aim of this study was to assess whether a change in access site practice toward transradial access nationally has led to worse outcomes in percutaneous coronary intervention procedures performed through the transfemoral access approach.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS) database, a retrospective analysis of 235 250 transfemoral access percutaneous coronary intervention procedures was undertaken in all 92 centers in England and Wales between 2007 and 2013. Recent femoral proportion and recent femoral volume were determined, and in-hospital vascular complications and 30-day mortality were evaluated. After case-mix adjustment, no independent association was observed between 30-day mortality for cases undertaken through the transfemoral access and center femoral proportion, the risk-adjusted odds ratio for recent femoral proportion was nonsignificant (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.97-1.02; P=0.472 per 0.1 increase in proportion), and similarly recent femoral volume (per 100 procedures) was not found to be significant (odds ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.01; P=0.869). The in-hospital vascular complication rate was 1.0%, and this outcome was not significantly associated with recent femoral proportion after risk-adjustment (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.00; P=0.060 per 0.1 increase in proportion).

CONCLUSIONS

The outcome gains achieved by the national adoption of radial access are not associated with a loss of femoral proficiency, and centers should be encouraged to continue to adopt radial access as the default access site for percutaneous coronary intervention wherever possible in line with current best evidence.