Which Arm and Vein are more Appropriate for Single-Step, Non-Fluoroscopic, Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Insertion?

Analysis of tip malposition and correction of peripherally inserted central catheters under ultrasound-guidance: 5-year outcomes from a single center

BACKGROUND

Peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) has become a common procedure. Although ultrasound (US)-guidance has improved success rates, a small percentage of malposition is inevitable. The purpose of our study is to evaluate malposition rates of US-guided bedside PICC catheter insertion, and the clinical factors associated with malposition.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study evaluating 5981 patients who had undergone ultrasound-guided bedside PICC placement from January 2017 to December 2021 at a single tertiary center. Final tip location was confirmed on chest radiograph.

RESULTS

Patients were categorized into optimal, suboptimal, and malposition groups according to final tip location. 4866 cases (81.7%) showed optimal tip position, 790 (13.3%) were suboptimal, and 299 (5.0%) were malpositioned. Logistic regression analysis identified six variables associated with tip malposition; height (odds ratio (OR) 1.044; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.028-1.061; p < 0.001), body mass index (BMI) (OR 1.051; 95% CI, 1.017-1.087; p = 0.003), prior failure at accessing peripheral intravenous (IV) access (OR 1.718; 95% CI, 1.215-2.428; p = 0.002), side of the arm (OR 3.467; 95% CI, 2.457-4.891; p < 0.001), length of the catheter (OR 0.763; 95% CI, 0.734-0.794; p < 0.001), and number of previous central catheter insertions (OR 1.069; 95% CI, 1.004-1.140; p = 0.038). Malpositioned catheters were corrected by either bedside repositioning, bedside reinsertion, fluoroscopic reinsertion, switching to jugular catheters or catheter removal. No patient related factors were significantly associated with malposition or success of reposition.

CONCLUSION

US-guidance can help reduce catheter malposition during bedside PICC insertion. Patients with risk factors such as multiple previous central vein insertions, failed peripheral line insertions, left arm insertion, or high BMI should undergo thorough sonographic evaluation of the arm vessels to prevent malposition.

Effectiveness of a nurse-led peripherally inserted central catheter service: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

A multitude of challenges arises from the growing utilisation of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), including the ability to provide timely, effective and safe insertion, which must be ensured and prioritised in patient care. A nurse-led model of care has become more prevalent as PICCs become extensively needed due to their applications. However, despite their widespread use, such intervention is yet in its inception in Saudi Arabia, and thereby, evaluating the outcomes of this service is of utmost importance to support patient safety initiatives and quality of care.

PURPOSE

This research aims to assess the effectiveness of a nurse-led PICC placement service.

METHODS

A quantitative retrospective cohort design was used. The sample of this study was 333 random subsets of records on PICC insertion for adult patients between 1st April 2019 and 31st March 2023 in a tertiary medical facility in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

RESULTS

A nurse-led PICC service demonstrated an overall successful placement of 330 cases (99.1%), out of which 323 PICCs (97%) were successfully inserted under intra-cavitary electrocardiogram (IC-ECG) guidance, while 7 PICCs (2.1%) were successfully inserted with fluoroscopy. The overall complication rate was 2.35 occurrences per 1000 CL days, whereas the complication rate within the first 10 days after PICC insertion was 0.42 per 1000 CL days.

CONCLUSION

A nurse-led model for PICC insertion has remarkably high success rates and low rates of complication, highlighting the pivotal role of a specialised PICC team. This service boasted a commendable track record of achieving a high rate of success in its implementation, implying that a nurse-led PICC service operates effectively to improve the patient experience by delivering timely and high-quality healthcare service.

Appropriateness of Replacing Fluoroscopic Guidance With ECG-Electromagnetic Guidance for PICC Insertion: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE. Coupled ECG-electromagnetic (EM) guidance shows promise for use in placement of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) when compared with the classic blind technique. However, ECG-EM guidance has not been appropriately compared with the reference standard of fluoroscopy (FX) guidance. Here, we aimed to compare ECG-EM guidance with FX guidance with regard to the final tip position of PICCs. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. A total of 120 patients (age range, 19-94 years) referred for PICC placement were randomized to the ECG-EM or FX group. All interventions were performed by PICC team members who had the same standardized training and experience. Final tip position was assessed using chest radiography and was classified as optimal, suboptimal, or inadequate requiring repositioning on the basis of the distance from the PICC tip to the cavoatrial junction (CAJ). Statistical analyses were performed using the Mann-Whitney U test for final catheter tip position (mean distance from CAJ) and Fisher and chi-square tests for proportions. RESULTS. PICCs were successfully inserted in 118 patients (53 men and 65 women). Catheter tip positions were optimal or suboptimal in 100% of the FX group and 77.2% of the ECG-EM group. Furthermore, precision of placement was significantly better (p = .004) in the FX group (mean distance from the PICC tip to the CAJ = 0.83 cm) than in the ECGEM group (mean distance from the PICC tip to the CAJ = 1.37 cm). Thirteen (22.8%) of the PICCs placed using ECG-EM guidance, all of which were inserted from the left side, were qualified as inadequate requiring repositioning and required another intervention. CONCLUSION. Our results revealed significant differences in final tip position between the ECG-EM and FX guidance techniques and indicate that ECG-EM guidance cannot appropriately replace FX guidance among unselected patients. However, ECGEM guidance could be considered as an acceptable technique for patients in whom the PICC could be inserted from the right side. TRIAL REGISTRATION. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03652727.

Influence of guide wire removal on tip location in peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs): a retrospective cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to identify the prevalence of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) malposition and the influence of guide wire removal on tip location in PICCs and determine whether related factors, including age, sex, side of insertion and brand of catheter, influence the PICC tip location.

SETTING

Single-centre research institute in China recruiting patients from the hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 837 adult patients with inserted PICCs were recruited from October 2016 to May 2017.

INTERVENTIONS

This was a cross-sectional study aiming to identify the prevalence of PICC malposition and the influence of guide wire removal on tip location in PICCs. A linear regression model and a variance of factorial design analysis were performed. The PICC tip location was documented on a postinsertion chest X-ray. Multivariable analyses were performed based on the following related factors: age, sex, side of insertion and brand of catheter.

RESULTS

The tip location moved a mean of 17.4 mm among the 837 included patients. The prevalence of PICC malposition was 83.6% (700/837), while 16.4% (137/837) of PICCs remained in correct location. The mean movement caused by guide wire removal without an adjusted tail end was (-1.95±26.90) mm. The difference between tail end adjustment movement and actual tip position movement in each PICC was (33.0±17.1) mm in type C, which was significantly higher than the findings for type A (12.8±13.3) mm and type B (12.9±12.7) mm.

CONCLUSIONS

PICC malposition is a frequent event. Different catheter brands were associated with different ranges of movement in tip location after guide wire removal. The age and sex of the patients and the insertion side did not influence the extent of movement.

Interventional management of central vein occlusion in patients with peripherally inserted central catheter placement

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the incidence of central vein occlusion (CVO) and analyzed the interventional management for CVO during peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) placement to suggest an adequate management protocol to ensure the success and patency of PICCs.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of 2568 PICCs to identify CVO in two medical centers between January 2016 and June 2017. Procedural images were reviewed for the following items: date and indication for the PICC; type of catheter; accessed vein and arm; characteristics of CVO on ascending arm venography; PICC placement technique; indwelling period of the PICC; and follow-up records. A guidewire passage trial was performed to the CVO, as follows: a trial with a 0.018-inch single or double guidewire through the pretrimmed PICC lumen; and a trial with a combination of a 0.035-inch guidewire and a curved 5F diagnostic catheter through the PICC introducer sheath.

RESULTS

The incidence of CVO was 3.2% (71/2232), and 59 patients were analyzed (23 men; mean age, 69 ± 11 years; median age, 80 years; age range, 31-92 years). Forty-four patients had thrombotic CVO, and 12 patients had acute thrombotic CVO. Thirty-six patients had occlusion of the left innominate vein, and six patients had contiguous involvement of the adjacent central vein. Forty-two patients had obtuse stump morphology of CVO, and 28 patients had grade >III collateral development. The PICC indwelling time was statistically different between the group with successful catheter advancement (n = 36, success group) and the group with failed catheter advancement (n = 18, failure group; P = .007) with ipsilateral trimmed PICCs. Eight patients had a symptomatic catheter associated with upper extremity deep venous thrombosis (UEDVT; <30 days), one in the success group and seven in the failure group. The incidence of catheter-associated UEDVT after primary PICC placement on each arm was statistically different between the success and failure groups (P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

A PICC passage trial for ipsilateral CVO is challenging but frequently successful with a simple guidewire technique, which can preserve catheter patency, decrease contralateral arm access, and prevent the development of new catheter-associated UEDVT.

Peripherally inserted central catheters in the treatment of children with cancer: Results of a multicenter study

Purpose:

To review our experience with peripherally inserted central catheters in pediatric cancer patients.

Methods:

The analysis included 353 patients (3 months up to 17 years, mean age 11.2 years) with a variety of cancers diseases, which in 2011–2016, 354 peripherally inserted central catheters were placed. All settings are carried out using ultrasound guidance. In 138 (39%) patients, external anatomical landmarks were used and in 216 (61%) intraoperative fluoroscopy.

Results:

Maximal duration of the line was 1.3 years, the lowest 1.5 months, and average 6.3 months. Among the technical difficulties during placement, most frequently have been the migration of the distal end of the catheter into the internal jugular vein against blood flow—32 (9%) patients. In one (0.3%) case, we were unable to catheterize the patient’s vein. Among the most common complications of operation were marked peripherally inserted central catheter clot occlusion of the lumen—26 (7.3%) cases. Symptomatic catheter-related thrombosis was observed in 16 (4.5%) cases. Catheter-related blood stream infections were not reported. Removal of peripherally inserted central catheters related to the complications was performed in 30 (8.5%) patients who were later implanted venous ports.

Conclusion:

Peripherally inserted central catheters are recommend to use in the treatment of children with cancer. There should be trained nursing staff to minimize the risk of complications.

The blind pushing technique for peripherally inserted central catheter placement through brachial vein puncture

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to conduct a prospective clinical trial evaluating the technical feasibility and short-term clinical outcome of the blind pushing technique for placement of pretrimmed peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) through brachial vein access.

METHODS

Patients requiring PICC placement at any of the three participating institutions were prospectively enrolled between January and December 2016. The review boards of all participating institutions approved this study, and informed consent was obtained from all patients. PICC placement was performed using the blind pushing technique and primary brachial vein access. The following data were collected from unified case report forms: access vein, obstacles during PICC advancement, procedure time, and postprocedural complications.

RESULTS

During the 12-month study period, 1380 PICCs were placed in 1043 patients. Of these, 1092 PICCs placed in 837 patients were enrolled, with 834 PICCs (76%) and 258 PICCs (34%) placed through brachial vein and nonbrachial vein access, respectively. In both arms, obstacles were most commonly noted in the subclavian veins (n = 220) and axillary veins (n = 94). Successful puncture of the access vein was achieved at first try in 1028 PICCs (94%). The technical success rate was 99%, with 1055 PICCs (97%) placed within 120 seconds of procedure time and 1088 PICCs (99%) having the tip located at the ideal position. Follow-up Doppler ultrasound detected catheter-associated upper extremity deep venous thrombosis (UEDVT) for 18 PICCs in 16 patients and late symptomatic UEDVT for 16 PICCs in 16 patients (3.1%). Catheter-associated UEDVT was noted for 28 PICCs (82%) and 6 PICCs (18%) placed through brachial vein and nonbrachial vein access, respectively. The incidence of obstacles and the procedure time (<120 seconds) differed significantly between brachial vein and nonbrachial vein access (P = .001). There was no statistically significant difference between brachial vein and nonbrachial vein access in the incidence of UEDVT (odds ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-3.52; P = .22).

CONCLUSIONS

The placement of pretrimmed PICCs by the blind pushing technique and primary brachial vein access is technically feasible and may represent an alternative to the conventional PICC placement technique, having low incidences of UEDVT and other complications, with no significant difference in outcomes between brachial vein and nonbrachial vein access.

Delayed Migration and Perforation of the Jugular Vein by a Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter

We report a case of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) migration and perforation of the left internal jugular vein in a home health setting in an 80-year-old female. A left sided PICC was placed for treatment of diverticulitis following hospital discharge. She complained of sudden onset left sided neck pain immediately after starting an infusion of vancomycin. In the emergency department the injury was identified by portable chest radiograph and computed tomography of her neck. Following removal of the line, she had an uneventful course. Emergency physicians should be aware of this possible PICC line complication.