Pro: ultrasound should be the standard of care for central catheter insertion

Economic Evaluation of Ultrasound-guided Central Venous Catheter Confirmation vs Chest Radiography in Critically Ill Patients: A Labor Cost Model

Introduction: Despite evidence suggesting that point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is faster and non-inferior for confirming position and excluding pneumothorax after central venous catheter (CVC) placement compared to traditional radiography, millions of chest radiographs (CXR) are performed annually for this purpose. Whether the use of POCUS results in cost savings compared to CXR is less clear but could represent a relative advantage in implementation efforts. Our objective in this study was to evaluate the labor cost difference for POCUS-guided vs CXR-guided CVC position confirmation practices. Methods: We developed a model to evaluate the per patient difference in labor cost between POCUS-guided vs CXR-guided CVC confirmation at our local urban, tertiary academic institution. We used internal cost data from our institution to populate the variables in our model. Results: The estimated labor cost per patient was $18.48 using CXR compared to $14.66 for POCUS, resulting in a net direct cost savings of $3.82 (21%) per patient using POCUS for CVC confirmation. Conclusion: In this study comparing the labor costs of two approaches for CVC confirmation, the more efficient alternative (POCUS-guided) is not more expensive than traditional CXR. Performing an economic analysis framed in terms of labor costs and work efficiency may influence stakeholders and facilitate earlier adoption of POCUS for CVC confirmation.

A comparative study of safety and efficacy of ultrasound-guided infra-clavicular axillary vein cannulation versus ultrasound-guided internal jugular vein cannulation in adult cardiac surgical patients

Background:

Ultrasound (US)-guided internal jugular vein (IJV) cannulation is a widely accepted standard procedure. The axillary vein (AV) in comparison to the subclavian vein is easily visualized, but its cannulation is not extensively studied in cardiac patients.

Aims:

This study is an attempt to study the efficacy of real-time US-guided axillary venous cannulation as a safe alternative for the time-tested US-guided IJV cannulation.

Design:

This is a prospective randomized controlled study.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 100 adult patients scheduled for cardiac surgery were divided equally in Group A-US-guided IJV cannulation, and Group B-US-guided axillary venous cannulation. Under local anesthesia and real-time US guidance the IJV or AV was secured. The access time, guidewire time, and procedure time were noted. Furthermore, the number of needle attempts, malposition, change of site, and complications were noted.

Results:

The data were analyzed for 49 patients in Group A and 48 patients in the Group B due to exclusions. The access time and the guidewire time were comparable in both groups. The first attempt needle puncture was successful for the IJV group in 98% of patients in comparison to 95% of patients in Group B. Guidewire was passed in the first attempt in 94% in Group A and 89% in the Group B. Except for arterial puncture in one case in group A, the complications were insignificant in both groups.

Conclusion:

The study shows that the US-guided AV cannulation may serve as an effective alternative to the IJV cannulation in cardiac surgery.

Misplaced subclavian central venous catheter

Percutaneous Central Venous Catheter (CVC) insertion using internal jugular and Subclavian veins routes is common procedure for all intensive care admitted patients and some patients in the ward as demand arises in central and referral hospitals of Botswana. This is a case report of a patient on whom a third attempt of re-inserting a CVC for fluid and total parenteral nutrition (TPN) was made. X-ray showed that left Subclavian inserted catheter was mis-directed to internal jugular vein of the same side creating discomfort to the patient. Ultra sound is recommended for routine investigation to confirm proper Central venous catheter placement as it can reduce failure, minimize complication and reduce cost of treatment.

Ultrasound guidance versus anatomical landmarks for internal jugular vein catheterization

BACKGROUND

Central venous catheters (CVCs) can help with diagnosis and treatment of the critically ill. The catheter may be placed in a large vein in the neck (internal jugular vein), upper chest (subclavian vein) or groin (femoral vein). Whilst this is beneficial overall, inserting the catheter risks arterial puncture and other complications and should be performed with as few attempts as possible. Traditionally, anatomical 'landmarks' on the body surface were used to find the correct place in which to insert catheters, but ultrasound imaging is now available. A Doppler mode is sometimes used to supplement plain 'two-dimensional' ultrasound.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of two-dimensional (imaging ultrasound (US) or ultrasound Doppler (USD)) guided puncture techniques for insertion of central venous catheters via the internal jugular vein in adults and children. We assessed whether there was a difference in complication rates between traditional landmark-guided and any ultrasound-guided central vein puncture.Our secondary objectives were to assess whether the effect differs between US and USD; whether the effect differs between ultrasound used throughout the puncture ('direct') and ultrasound used only to identify and mark the vein before the start of the puncture procedure (indirect'); and whether the effect differs between different groups of patients or between different levels of experience among those inserting the catheters.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to 15 January 2013), EMBASE (1966 to 15 January 2013), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 15 January 2013 ), reference lists of articles, 'grey literature' and dissertations. An additional handsearch focused on intensive care and anaesthesia journals and abstracts and proceedings of scientific meetings. We attempted to identify unpublished or ongoing studies by contacting companies and experts in the field, and we searched trial registers. We reran the search in August 2014. We will deal with identified studies of interest when we update the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing two-dimensional ultrasound or Doppler ultrasound with an anatomical 'landmark' technique during insertion of internal jugular venous catheters in both adults and children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted data on methodological quality, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest using a standardized form. A priori, we aimed to perform subgroup analyses, when possible, for adults and children, and for experienced operators and inexperienced operators.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 735 identified citations, 35 studies enrolling 5108 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The quality of evidence was very low for most of the outcomes and was moderate at best for four of the outcomes. Most trials had an unclear risk of bias across the six domains, and heterogeneity among the studies was significant.Use of two-dimensional ultrasound reduced the rate of total complications overall by 71% (14 trials, 2406 participants, risk ratio (RR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.52; P value < 0.0001, I² = 57%), and the number of participants with an inadvertent arterial puncture by 72% (22 trials, 4388 participants, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.44; P value < 0.00001, I² = 35%). Overall success rates were modestly increased in all groups combined at 12% (23 trials, 4340 participants, RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.17; P value < 0.00001, I² = 85%), and similar benefit was noted across all subgroups. The number of attempts needed for successful cannulation was decreased overall (16 trials, 3302 participants, mean difference (MD) -1.19 attempts, 95% CI -1.45 to -0.92; P value < 0.00001, I² = 96%) and in all subgroups. Use of two-dimensional ultrasound increased the chance of success at the first attempt by 57% (18 trials, 2681 participants, RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.36 to 1.82; P value < 0.00001, I² = 82%) and reduced the chance of haematoma formation (overall reduction 73%, 13 trials, 3233 participants, RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.55; P value 0.0004, I² = 54%). Use of two-dimensional ultrasound decreased the time to successful cannulation by 30.52 seconds (MD -30.52 seconds, 95% CI -55.21 to -5.82; P value 0.02, I² = 97%). Additional data are available to support use of ultrasound during, not simply before, line insertion.Use of Doppler ultrasound increased the chance of success at the first attempt by 58% (four trials, 199 participants, RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.43; P value 0.04, I² = 57%). No evidence showed a difference for the total numbers of perioperative and postoperative complications/adverse events (three trials, 93 participants, RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.71; P value 0.28), the overall success rate (seven trials, 289 participants, RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.25; P value 0.20), the total number of attempts until success (two trials, 69 participants, MD -0.63, 95% CI -1.92 to 0.66; P value 0.34), the overall number of participants with an arterial puncture (six trials, 213 participants, RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.73; P value 0.35) and time to successful cannulation (five trials, 214 participants, each using a different definition for this outcome; MD 62.04 seconds, 95% CI -13.47 to 137.55; P value 0.11) when Doppler ultrasound was used. It was not possible to perform analyses for the other outcomes because they were reported in only one trial.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on available data, we conclude that two-dimensional ultrasound offers gains in safety and quality when compared with an anatomical landmark technique. Because of missing data, we did not compare effects with experienced versus inexperienced operators for all outcomes (arterial puncture, haematoma formation, other complications, success with attempt number one), and so the relative utility of ultrasound in these groups remains unclear and no data are available on use of this technique in patients at high risk of complications. The results for Doppler ultrasound techniques versus anatomical landmark techniques are also uncertain.

Ultrasound first, second, and last for vascular access

Vascular access is the most commonly performed invasive procedure in medicine. For more than 20 years, ultrasound has been shown to improve the success and decrease complications of central venous access; however, it is still not universally used for this procedure. Ultrasound may also be used to facilitate difficult peripheral vascular access, potentially avoiding other more invasive procedures such as central or intraosseus vascular access. This article reviews some of the indications and evidence for ultrasound-guided vascular access, provides tips for successful ultrasound guidance, and discusses barriers to adoption.

The year in cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia: selected highlights from 2012

Cardiothoracic and vascular critical care has emerged as a subspecialty due to procedural breakthroughs, an aging population, and a multidisciplinary collaboration. This subspecialty now has a dedicated professional society, recently published guidelines, and plans for standardized certification. This paradigm shift represents a major collaboration opportunity for our specialty. The rise of evidence-based perioperative practice has produced a culture of large trials in our specialty to search for solutions to the challenging outcome questions. Besides the growth in the development of evidence, the consensus conference format and postpublication peer review have both emerged as effective processes for identifying the most relevant high-quality evidence. The quest for best perioperative practice has highlighted the importance of teamwork at all phases of care with respect to transitions in care, blood component transfusion, and research misconduct. The emergence of ultrasound as a standard for central vascular access also has been emphasized in recent multisociety guidelines. There also has been a paradigm shift in the management of patients with coronary artery disease. Recent guidelines have emphasized the roles of the cardiac anesthesiologist and the interventional cardiologist as part of the heart team approach. Major recent trials in comparative effectiveness have challenged the advantages of percutaneous coronary intervention, off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery, and intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation. The year 2012 has witnessed the emergence of new paradigms of care in our specialty with the emphasis on teamwork, safety, and quality. These processes will further improve perioperative outcome.

Assessing the Quality of Central Venous Catheter and Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Videos on the YouTube Video-Sharing Web site

Background: Video sharing networks such as YouTube have revolutionized communication. Whilst access is freely available uploaded videos can contain non peer-reviewed information. This has consequences for the scientific and health care community, when the challenge in teaching is to present clinical procedures that follow empirical methods.

Objective: To review 50 central venous catheter and peripherally inserted central catheter videos posted on YouTube. The aim was to appraise these videos using current evidenced-based guidelines.

Methods: We searched YouTube using the key words central venous cannulation and peripherally inserted central catheter insertion on September 21, 2012. We consecutively reviewed 50 videos for both procedures.

Results: There was poor adherence to evidence-based guidelines in the critiqued videos. There was a difference in adherence with the use of appropriate skin antisepsis in the 2 groups (18% for central venous catheters vs 52% for peripherally inserted central catheters; p = 0.009). And a large proportion in both groups compromised aseptic technique (37% for central venous catheters vs 38% for peripherally inserted central catheter; p = 0.940). The use of ultrasound guidance during procedures was also different between the 2 groups (33% for central venous catheters vs 85% for peripherally inserted central catheters; p = 0.017).

Conclusions: This critique of instructional videos related to the insertion of central venous catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters uploaded to YouTube has highlighted poor adherence to current evidence-based guidelines. This lack of adherence to empirical guidelines can pose risks to clinical learning and ultimately to patient safety.