Evaluation of midline vascular access: a descriptive study

Infiltration and Extravasation Risk with Midline Catheters: A Narrative Literature Review

Midline catheters have recently gained popularity in clinical use, with a common reason being the reduction of central venous catheter use and central line-associated bloodstream infections. At the same time, the number of nononcology vesicant medications has increased, and midline catheters are frequently being used for infusions of vesicant medications. The Infusion Nurses Society (INS) Vesicant Task Force identified midline catheter use as a possible risk factor for extravasation and concluded that a thorough literature review was necessary. This review highlights the variations in catheter terminology and tip locations, the frequency of infiltration and extravasation in published studies, and case reports of infiltration and extravasation from midline catheters. It also examines the many clinical issues requiring evidence-based decision-making for the most appropriate type of vascular access devices. After more than 30 years of clinical practice with midline catheters and what appears to be a significant number of studies, evidence is still insufficient to answer questions about infusion of vesicant and irritant medications through midline catheters. Given the absence of consensus on tip location, inadequate evidence of clinical outcomes, and importance of patient safety, the continuous infusion of vesicants, all parenteral nutrition formulas, and infusates with extremes in pH and osmolarity should be avoided through midline catheters.

Complications and risk factors on midline catheters' follow-up about non-ICU patients: study protocol for a multicentre observational study (the midDATA study)

INTRODUCTION

The midline catheter (MC) is an increasingly popular device used commonly for patients with difficult venous access or those who require infusion for more than 6 days. Little is known about complications such as infection, thrombosis or occlusion for inpatient and home care patient. This protocol presents the follow-up of non-intensive care unit patients with an MC. The aim is to identify complications and search for risk factors associated with these complications.

METHOD AND ANALYSIS

A prospective observational design is used for the follow-up of 2000 patients from 13 centres in France. Each practitioner (inserting clinician, anaesthetist nurse, hospital nurse and home nurse) will fill out a logbook to report each care made (eg, number of saline flushes, dress maintenance) on the MC and if any complications occurred. The incidence of complications (ie, infections, thrombosis or occlusions) will be expressed by the total number of events per 1000 catheter days. The period of recruitment began in December 2019 for a duration of 2 years. An extension of the inclusion period of 1 year was obtained.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study received the approval of the Committee for the Protection of Persons of Nord Ouest IV (No EudraCT/ID-RCB : 2019-A02406-51). It was registered at clinical trials (NCT04131088). It is planned to communicate results at conferences and in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04131088.

Experience in the use of midclavicular catheters: An inception cohort study

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To describe the outcomes of midclavicular catheters related to first insertion success rate, catheter dwell time, rate of catheter survival until the end of the treatment, and complication rates, as well as identify risk factors associated with early catheter removal.

BACKGROUND

Midclavicular catheters are peripheral venous catheters that are typically 20-25 cm in length.

DESIGN

Inception cohort study.

METHODS

We included all the midclavicular lines inserted in patients who met any of the following criteria: (a) difficult venous access; (b) administration of intravenous therapy expected to last between 6 and 30 days with non-irritant (pH=5-9) and/or non-vesicant drugs; or (c) contraindications to central venous catheter placement. The incidence of adverse events was calculated using percentages and episodes per 1,000 catheter days. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify significant risk factors for unexpected catheter removal by calculating odds ratios. Catheter survival was assessed using Cox regression analysis. The STROBE guidelines were followed.

RESULTS

Overall, 2,275 midclavicular lines were placed in 1,841 participants. The insertion success rate was 99.4% and the mean catheter dwell time was 21.82 days. The rate of adverse events was .7 per 1,000 catheter days, the most common complications being thrombosis (.39) and catheter-associated bacteraemia (.14). No significant association was found between adverse events and the administration of irritant drugs. The incidence of unexpected removal was 6.7 per 1,000 catheter days. The multivariate analysis showed that both age ≤70 years and home therapy were associated with a lower likelihood of catheter failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Midclavicular catheters are associated with a high rate of insertion success and low rates of adverse events and unplanned removal.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Midclavicular lines are a safe alternative for intravenous therapy lasting more than 6 days, even with irritant drugs.

Evaluation of processes, outcomes, and use of midline peripheral catheters for the purpose of blood collection

HIGHLIGHTS

Results added knowledge on use of midline catheters (MCs) for blood sampling. Using MCs for blood withdrawal resulted in low rates of hemolysis (0.69%). Dwell time was longer in those who had blood drawn from their MC. Nurse practices for blood sampling from MCs varied and learned from other nurses.

BACKGROUND

Blood withdrawal from midline catheters (MCs) is done clinically, but no studies were found evaluating outcomes from this procedure, nor were clinical guidelines found. Drawing blood samples from short peripheral catheters is associated with higher hemolysis rates.

METHODS

A prospective, observational, mixed methods study was used to evaluate outcomes from using MCs for blood withdrawal. Focus group sessions were held to evaluate nurses' practices for this procedure.

RESULTS

Data were collected over 3 months on 397 MCs in 378 patients. Hemolysis rates when the MC was used for blood withdrawal was 0.69% in 1021 tests. More than half had blood specimens drawn through the MC, and the time known for the successful withdrawal was on average 64 ± 85 hours. Mean dwell time for all MCs was 108.5 ± 98 hours, and when MCs were used for blood withdrawal, mean dwell time was 127.19 ± 109.13 hours and for MCs not used for blood withdrawal, 88.34 ± 79.86 hours (P < 0.001). In 338 patients who received therapy through their MC (n = 338), 87% completed intended therapy: 88% with blood withdrawal and 81% without blood withdrawal. Qualitative analysis from focus groups demonstrated wide variation in practice for blood sampling from MCs, and most learned techniques from their preceptors, other nurses, or patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings indicated that blood withdrawal from one specific type of MC had low rates of hemolysis, increased dwell time, and completion of therapy. More studies are needed to determine best practices for blood sampling through various types of MCs and outcomes.

The Practice and Complications of Midline Catheters: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Midline catheters are considered "midway" regarding vascular access. The objective of this systematic review was to explore the current practice, dwell time, and complication rates of midline catheters.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING

Search on four databases, PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Embase, were conducted for English language articles published after the year 2000.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 987 articles were identified, of which 31 manuscripts met the inclusion criteria and were selected for review. Quality assurance was performed based on the Newcastle-Ottawa score. Average dwell time and complication rates were calculated for studies involving adult patients and adjusted for sample size. This analysis included data from the placement of 18,972 midline catheters across five countries. Aside from two randomized control trials, most of the studies analyzed were cohort studies. One pediatric and two neonatal studies were included. The average dwell time was 16.3 days (n = 4,412). The adjusted mean infection rate was 0.28/1,000 catheter days, with 64% of studies not reporting any infection with midline catheter. The failure rate of midline catheters was 12.5%. Adjusted average rates of other significant complications included the following: deep vein thrombosis (4.1%), dislodgement (5.0%), occlusion (3.8%), phlebitis (3.4%), and infiltration (1.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

The dwell times and failure rates of midline catheters compare favorably against published data on other types of catheters. Their infection rates are also lower than the reported rates of central venous catheters; however, they have a higher rate of mechanical complications. Active surveillance of infections due to midline catheters is recommended. More data are needed from pediatric and neonatal populations.

Novel use of a midline catheter for therapeutic and donor apheresis in children and adults

BACKGROUND

Apheresis procedures require adequate vascular access to achieve optimal inlet flow rates. While central lines provide such access, their placement and use are associated with risks; some of these risks are minimized if peripheral intravenous access can be established. However, peripheral intravenous access is associated with challenges in the pediatric setting. Research indicates that midline catheters reduce the use of CVADs and their associated risks. The use of midline catheters for apheresis has been reported recently in adults, but no studies have been published on their use in children. Thus, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of midline catheters for apheresis in the pediatric setting.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of midline catheters in subjects who underwent apheresis at a pediatric hospital from April 2018 to August 2020. Demographic data, clinical data (diagnosis, procedure, catheter size, body mass), and outcome data (inlet flow rate, total blood volume [TBV] processed, procedure time, and cell counts) were collected.

RESULTS

Eighteen subjects received a total of 100 midline catheters for 73 apheresis procedures. Inlet flow rates ranged from 45 to 80 mL/min, TBV ranged from 2872 to 20 000 mL, and procedure time ranged from 1.25 to 7 hours. Inlet flow rates met or exceeded the recommended inlet flow rates for apheresis in children and adults (P < .0001). No adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSION

Midline catheters provide safe and effective vascular access for apheresis. Future research should include younger patients with lower body mass.

A Cluster of Failures of Midline Catheters in a Hospital in the Home Program: A Retrospective Analysis

A cluster of 11 midline catheter failures occurred during a 2-week period in a Hospital in the Home program in an urban tertiary hospital in Australia. These failures prompted a 4-month retrospective audit of patients receiving outpatient antimicrobial therapy between December 1, 2016 and March 1, 2017. Primary outcomes were dwell time and catheter failure. Peripherally inserted central catheters had significantly fewer failures and significantly longer dwell times compared with midline catheters. Women experienced higher rates of midline catheter failure than men. The proportion of patients with midline catheters receiving continuous infusions who experienced a failure was markedly higher than those receiving bolus doses. Suggestions for further related research are discussed.

Evidence-Based Strategies and Recommendations for Preservation of Central Venous Access in Children

Children with chronic illness often require prolonged or repeated venous access. They remain at high risk for venous catheter-related complications (high-risk patients), which largely derive from elective decisions during catheter insertion and continuing care. These complications result in progressive loss of the venous capital (patent and compliant venous pathways) necessary for delivery of life-preserving therapies. A nonstandardized, episodic, isolated approach to venous care in these high-need, high-cost patients is too often the norm, imposing a disproportionate burden on affected persons and escalating costs. This state-of-the-art review identifies known failure points in the current systems of venous care, details the elements of an individualized plan of care, and emphasizes a patient-centered, multidisciplinary, collaborative, and evidence-based approach to care in these vulnerable populations. These guidelines are intended to enable every practitioner in every practice to deliver better care and better outcomes to these patients through awareness of critical issues, anticipatory attention to meaningful components of care, and appropriate consultation or referral when necessary.

Inhibition of bacterial attachment and biofilm formation by a novel intravenous catheter material using an in vitro percutaneous catheter insertion model

Introduction

Despite sterile barrier precautions and vigorous skin antisepsis, percutaneous insertion of intravenous catheters has been shown to result in attachment to the catheter surface of bacteria residing in the deep structures of the skin. Such attachment poses the risk of biofilm formation and eventual catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI). This study was undertaken to assess whether the non-coated surface treatment of a unique catheter material (ChronoFlex C^® with BioGUARD™) could inhibit bacterial attachment and biofilm formation.

Methods

A novel in vitro model and fluorescence microscopy were used to compare two intravascular catheter materials with respect to bacterial attachment and biofilm formation. The control material was a commonly used polyurethane. The study material was a unique copolymer, treated so as to remove surface additives, alter hydrophobicity and create surface micro-patterning. Outcomes were assessed using both a membrane potential indicator and a cell death reporter with appropriate fluorescent channels. Thus, bacterial cells attached to the catheter surface (living and dead) were imaged without mechanical disruption.

Results

Both bacterial attachment and biofilm formation are significantly inhibited by the study catheter material. In fact, over 5 times more bacteria were able to attach and grow on the control polyurethane material than on the study material (P=0.0020). Moreover, those few bacteria that were able to attach to the study material had a 1.5 times greater likelihood of dying.

Conclusion

Using a novel in vitro percutaneous catheter insertion model, ChronoFlex C with BioGUARD is proven to significantly inhibit bacterial attachment and biofilm formation as compared with a commonly used polyurethane catheter material.

Safety and utilization of peripherally inserted central catheters versus midline catheters at a large academic medical center

BACKGROUND

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are a commonly used central intravenous (IV) access device, which can be associated with significant complications. Midline catheters (MCs) are peripheral IV access devices that may reduce the need for central lines and hence decrease central line-associated bloodstream infections. The objective of this study is to compare the utilization and safety of PICCs and MCs.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study comparing the use and outcomes of PICCs and MCs at a large academic medical center between January and May 2015. Data were collected using electronic medical records and IV team insertion data. Statistical software was used for analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 206 PICCs and 200 MCs were inserted in 367 patients within the study duration. Patients with MCs were more likely to have complications than those with PICCs (19.5% vs 5.8%, P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

MCs were associated with a higher risk of non-life-threatening complications versus PICCs, which showed fewer but more serious complications, including bacteremia. The decision to move toward more use of MCs is not without risk. Institutions should continue to review the utilization and safety data of IV catheter use to determine the most appropriate use of these devices.