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.

Central venous access device terminologies, complications, and reason for removal in oncology: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Lack of agreed terminology and definitions in healthcare compromises communication, patient safety, optimal management of adverse events, and research progress. The purpose of this scoping review was to understand the terminologies used to describe central venous access devices (CVADs), associated complications and reasons for premature removal in people undergoing cancer treatment. It also sought to identify the definitional sources for complications and premature removal reasons. The objective was to map language and descriptions used and to explore opportunities for standardisation.

METHODS

A systematic search of MedLine, PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL Complete and Embase databases was performed. Eligibility criteria included, but were not limited to, adult patients with cancer, and studies published between 2017 and 2022. Articles were screened and data extracted in Covidence. Data charting included study characteristics and detailed information on CVADs including terminologies and definitional sources for complications and premature removal reasons. Descriptive statistics, tables and bar graphs were used to summarise charted data.

RESULTS

From a total of 2363 potentially eligible studies, 292 were included in the review. Most were observational studies (n = 174/60%). A total of 213 unique descriptors were used to refer to CVADs, with all reasons for premature CVAD removal defined in 84 (44%) of the 193 studies only, and complications defined in 56 (57%) of the 292 studies. Where available, definitions were author-derived and/or from national resources and/or other published studies.

CONCLUSION

Substantial variation in CVAD terminology and a lack of standard definitions for associated complications and premature removal reasons was identified. This scoping review demonstrates the need to standardise CVAD nomenclature to enhance communication between healthcare professionals as patients undergoing cancer treatment transition between acute and long-term care, to enhance patient safety and rigor of research protocols, and improve the capacity for data sharing.

A scoping review of Clinical Studies, Hospital Group Reports and National Strategic Documents on vascular access devices in cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

The extent of vascular/venous access device (VAD) research output from the Island of Ireland is unknown. The identification of the papers available is important to create a future research agenda.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this study is to answer three questions: What is the number and descriptive quality of reported Vascular Access Device literature from the Island of Ireland? Is the reporting of Catheter Related Infection rates for cancer patients common in Irish Hospital Groups, National Cancer Reports and Publication Outputs? What are the implications for future research in this area?

METHODS

We used a scoping review and searched selected databases, grey literature and hospital regulatory bodies websites following the Joanna Briggs Institute Guidelines 2017. A data charting form was developed based on a template from the Joanna Briggs Institute and this was used to extract data from the included reports.

RESULTS

A total of 660 reports were screened. Sixty-one full text articles were reviewed from which 20 reports were included for data extraction. Of the reports included the following designs were used: nine retrospective study designs, four guidelines, two prospective study designs, two literature reviews and one of the following; survey, case study and cross sectional analysis designs. We did not identify any randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, meta-synthesis and scoping reviews. Five studies included catheter related infection rates. Gaps in the research include the collection of data sets and the need to establish a VAD registry; develop core outcomes for VADs; assessment and evaluation of VAD care bundles among cancer patients; and, the inclusion of public and patient involvement in future VAD research.

CONCLUSION

The reporting of VAD outcomes in published literature regarding cancer patients receiving treatment in Ireland is inconsistent and varied with no interventional studies addressing vascular access complications in cancer care.

Subcutaneously anchored securement for peripherally inserted central catheters: Immediate, early, and late complications

BACKGROUND

An adequate stabilization of a vascular device is an important part of insertion bundles and is an effective strategy in reducing complications. Dislodgment has a relevant clinical impact and an increase in healthcare costs.

METHOD

We have retrospectively investigated the safety and efficacy of Subcutaneously Anchored Securement (SAS) for Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters (PICC) in cancer patients.

RESULTS

We analyzed 639 patients who had a PICC inserted and secured with SAS, over the past 3 years (2018-2020). No immediate complications during SAS placement were reported. In the first 24-48 h, a slight local ecchymosis was reported in 24 cases with rapid spontaneous resolution. No cases of bleeding or hematoma of the exit site were reported. The total number of catheter days was 93078. Dislodgment occurred only in seven cases (1.1%). In 16 patients, the PICC was removed because of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI): the overall incidence of CRBSI was 0.17 per 1000 catheter days. Symptomatic venous thrombosis was documented in 12 patients (1.9%) and treated with low molecular weight heparin without PICC removal. We had no cases of irreversible lumen occlusion. In 17 patients, local discomfort-including device-related pressure ulcers and painful inflammation-was reported: these cases were treated without SAS removal or PICC removal.

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective analysis, subcutaneously anchored securement of PICCs was a safe and effective strategy for reducing the risk of dislodgment.

Pediatric robotic surgery: issues in management-expert consensus from the Italian Society of Pediatric and Neonatal Anesthesia and Intensive Care (SARNePI) and the Italian Society of Pediatric Surgery (SICP)

BACKGROUND

Pediatric robotic-assisted surgeries have increased in recent years; however, guidance documents are still lacking. This study aimed to develop evidence-based recommendations, or best practice statements when evidence is lacking or inadequate, to assist surgical teams internationally.

METHODS

A joint consensus taskforce of anesthesiologists and surgeons from the Italian Society of Pediatric and Neonatal Anesthesia and Intensive Care (SARNePI) and the Italian Society of Pediatric Surgery (SICP) have identified critical areas and reviewed the available evidence. The taskforce comprised 21 experts representing the fields of anesthesia (n = 11) and surgery (n = 10) from clinical centers performing pediatric robotic surgery in the Italian cities of Ancona, Bologna, Milan, Naples, Padua, Pavia, Perugia, Rome, Siena, and Verona. Between December 2020 and September 2021, three meetings, two Delphi rounds, and a final consensus conference took place.

RESULTS

During the first planning meeting, the panel agreed on the specific objectives, the definitions to apply, and precise methodology. The project was structured into three subtopics: (i) preoperative patient assessment and preparation; (ii) intraoperative management (surgical and anesthesiologic); and (iii) postoperative procedures. Within these phases, the panel agreed to address a total of 18 relevant areas, which spanned preoperative patient assessment and patient selection, anesthesiology, critical care medicine, respiratory care, prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting, and pain management.

CONCLUSION

Collaboration among surgeons and anesthesiologists will be increasingly important for achieving safe and effective RAS procedures. These recommendations will provide a review for those who already have relevant experience and should be particularly useful for those starting a new program.

Catheter securement impact on PICC-related CLABSI: A university hospital perspective

The use of a subcutaneous engineered securement device (SESD) for peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) in an acute care setting was found to have a direct impact on central line associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates compared to traditional adhesive engineered securement devices (AESD).

OBJECTIVE

While the literature suggests the use of SESDs has had successful results for device securement, it is unknown to what extent they may impact CLABSI rates. Securement and stabilization performance among devices may be a direct risk factor for CLABSIs.

METHODS

A retrospective quality review of 7,776 cases was conducted at a large academic medical center. The primary researcher implemented a quantitative design which was analyzed with demographics statistics and relative risk ratio.

RESULTS

There was a 288% (n = 47) increase in relative risk of CLABSI found in the AESD group compared to the SESD group. The results imply the use of SESDs may improve nursing practice and patient outcomes lowering CLABSI rates in patients with PICCs by a reduction of risks associated with securement design differences.

GAVeCeLT-WoCoVA Consensus on subcutaneously anchored securement devices for the securement of venous catheters: Current evidence and recommendations for future research

Background:

Subcutaneously anchored securement devices (or subcutaneous engineered securement devices) have been introduced recently into the clinical practice, but the number of published studies is still scarce. The Italian Group of Long-Term Central Venous Access Devices (GAVeCeLT)—in collaboration with WoCoVA (World Congress on Vascular Access)—has developed a Consensus about the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of such devices.

Methods:

After the definition of a panel of experts, a systematic collection and review of the literature on subcutaneously anchored securement devices was performed. The panel has been divided in two working groups, one focusing on adult patients and the other on children and neonates.

Results:

Although the quality of evidence is generally poor, since it is based mainly on non-controlled prospective studies, the panel has concluded that subcutaneously anchored securement devices are overall effective in reducing the risk of dislodgment and they appear to be safe in all categories of patients, being associated only with rare and negligible local adverse effects; cost-effectiveness is demonstrated—or highly likely—in specific populations of patients with long-term venous access and/or at high risk of dislodgment.

Conclusion:

Subcutaneously anchored securement is a very promising strategy for avoiding dislodgment. Further studies are warranted, in particular for the purpose of defining (a) the best management of the anchoring device so to avoid local problems, (b) the patient populations in which it may be considered highly cost-effective and even mandatory, (c) the possible benefit in terms of reduction of other catheter-related complications such as venous thrombosis and/or infection, and—last but not least—(d) their impact on the workload and stress level of nurses taking care of the devices.