Thoracic duct cannulation during left internal jugular vein cannulation: A case report

BACKGROUND

Central venous catheter insertion is an invasive procedure that can cause complications such as infection, embolization due to air or blood clots, pneumothorax, hemothorax, and, rarely, chylothorax due to damage to the thoracic duct. Herein, we report a case of suspected thoracic duct cannulation that occurred during left central venous catheter insertion. Fortunately, the patient was discharged without any adverse events related to thoracic duct cannulation.

CASE SUMMARY

A 46-year-old female patient presented at our department to undergo cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. During anesthesia, we decided to insert a central venous catheter through the left internal jugular vein because the patient already had a chemoport through the right central vein. During the procedure, blood reflux was observed when the needle tip was not within the ultrasound field of view. We did not try to find the tip; however, a guide wire and a central venous catheter were inserted without any resistance. Subsequently, when inducing blood reflux from the distal port of the central venous catheter, only clear fluid, suspected to be lymphatic fluid, was regurgitated. Further, chest X-ray revealed an appearance similar to that of the path of the thoracic duct. Given that intravenous fluid administration was not started and no abnormal fluid collection was noted on preoperative chest X-ray, we suspected thoracic duct cannulation.

CONCLUSION

It is important to use ultrasound to confirm the exact position of the needle tip and guide wire path.

Improvement of central vein ultrasound-guided puncture success using a homemade needle guide-a simulation study

BACKGROUND

Out-of-plane (OOP) approach is frequently used for ultrasound-guided insertion of central venous catheter (CVC) owing to its simplicity but does not avoid mechanical complication. In-plane (IP) approach might improve safety of insertion; however, it is less easy to master. We assessed, a homemade needle guide device aimed to improve CVC insertion using IP approach.

METHOD

We evaluated in a randomized simulation trial, the impact of a homemade needle guide on internal jugular, subclavian and femoral vein puncture, using three approaches: out-of-plane free hand (OOP-FH), in-plane free hand (IP-FH), and in-plane needle guided (IP-NG). Success at first pass, the number of needle redirections and arterial punctures was recorded. Time elapsed (i) from skin contact to first skin puncture, (ii) from skin puncture to successful venous puncture and (iii) from skin contact to venous return were measured.

RESULTS

Thirty operators performed 270 punctures. IP-NG approach resulted in high success rate at first pass (jugular: 80%, subclavian: 95% and femoral: 100%) which was higher than success rate observed with OOP-FH and IP-FH regardless of the site (p = .01). Compared to IP-FH and OOP-FH, the IP-NG approach decreased the number of needle redirections at each site (p = .009) and arterial punctures (p = .001). Compared to IP-FH, the IP-NG approach decreased the total procedure duration for puncture at each site.

CONCLUSION

In this simulation study, IP approach using a homemade needle guide for ultrasound-guided central vein puncture improved success rate at first pass, reduced the number of punctures/redirections and shortened the procedure duration compared to OOP and IP free-hand approaches.

WireSafeTM - A pilot study of a novel safety engineered device designed to prevent guidewire retention and reduce sharps injuries during central venous catheter insertion

Background

Guidewire retention and sharps injury during central venous catheter insertion are errors that cause patient and healthcare professional harm. The WireSafeTM is a novel procedure safety pack engineered to prevent guidewire retention and sharps injury during central venous catheter insertion. This is a pilot study aimed to determine its acceptability, usability and safety during clinical practice.

Methods

An observational time and motion study was conducted comparing central venous catheter insertion and sharps disposal practice using standard versus WireSafeTM techniques. One-year following implementation, a structured survey was conducted to determine clinician opinion and experiences of using the WireSafeTM.

Results

15 procedures were observed using standard practice and 16 using the WireSafeTM technique. The WireSafeTM technique decreased the time taken from removal of the guidewire to disposal of sharps (standard 11.4 ± 5.6 min vs WireSafeTM 8.7 ± 1.4 min, p = 0.035), as well as total procedure time (standard 16 ± 7 min vs WireSafeTM 14.2 ± 2 min, p = 0.17), although this latter trend did not reach significance. Clinicians frequently practiced unsafe behaviour during sharps disposal in the standard group (53%), but when using the WireSafeTM technique, 100% exhibited safe practice by transferring sharps to the bin inside the sealed WireSafeTM box. One-year following implementation, 20 clinicians participated in the structured survey. Clinicians across three different departments used the WireSafeTM in varying clinical situations and reported that its use for central line insertion was either easier (10/20) or no different (10/20) compared to standard practice. All clinicians (20/20) felt that the WireSafeTM reduced the risk of guidewire retention and all stated that they approved of the WireSafeTM technique, and supported its use for convenience and safety benefits.

Conclusion

Utilising the WireSafeTM for central line insertion facilitated earlier and safer sharps disposal, and the device was well supported by clinicians for its convenience and safety benefits.