Dataset Information

Magnetic Tracking and Electrocardiography-Guided Tip Confirmation System Versus Fluoroscopy for Placement of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: A Randomized, Noninferiority Comparison.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:To determine whether the use of a magnetic tracking and electrocardiography-guided catheter tip confirmation system (TCS) is safe and noninferior to fluoroscopy concerning positioning accuracy of a peripheral inserted central catheter (PICC). METHODS:In this prospective, randomized, single-center study, adult patients scheduled for PICC insertion were assigned 1:1 either to TCS or fluoroscopy. The primary objective was a noninferiority comparison of correct PICC tip position confirmed by X-ray obtained immediately after catheter insertion. Time needed for PICC insertion and insertion-related complications up to 14 days after the procedure were secondary outcomes to be assessed for superiority. RESULTS:A total of 210 patients (62.3?±?14.4 years, 63.8% male) were included at a single German center between June 2016 and October 2017. Correct PICC tip position was achieved in 84 of 103 TCS (82.4%) and 103 of 104 fluoroscopy patients (99.0%). One-sided 95% lower confidence limit on the difference between proportions was -23.1%. Thus, noninferiority of TCS was not established (p?>?0.99). Insertion of PICC took longer with TCS compared to fluoroscopy (8.4?±?3.7 min vs. 5.0?±?2.7 min, p?

SUBMITTER: Mack V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7649160 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Magnetic Tracking and Electrocardiography-Guided Tip Confirmation System Versus Fluoroscopy for Placement of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: A Randomized, Noninferiority Comparison.

Mack V V Nißler D D Kasikci D D Malouhi A A Aschenbach R R Teichgräber U U

Cardiovascular and interventional radiology 20200617 12

<h4>Purpose</h4>To determine whether the use of a magnetic tracking and electrocardiography-guided catheter tip confirmation system (TCS) is safe and noninferior to fluoroscopy concerning positioning accuracy of a peripheral inserted central catheter (PICC).<h4>Methods</h4>In this prospective, randomized, single-center study, adult patients scheduled for PICC insertion were assigned 1:1 either to TCS or fluoroscopy. The primary objective was a noninferiority comparison of correct PICC tip positi ...[more]

PMID: 32556606

Similar Datasets

Project description:Use of peripherally inserted central catheters has expanded rapidly, but the consequences for patients who eventually require hemodialysis are undefined.Our national, population-based analysis included 33,918 adult Medicare beneficiaries from the US Renal Data System who initiated hemodialysis with central venous catheters as their sole vascular access in 2010 and 2011. We used linked Medicare claims to identify peripherally inserted central catheter exposures and evaluate the associations of peripherally inserted central catheter placement with transition to working arteriovenous fistulas or grafts and patient survival using a Cox model with time-dependent variables.Among 33,918 individuals initiating hemodialysis with a catheter as sole access, 12.6% had received at least one peripherally inserted central catheter. Median follow-up was 404 days (interquartile range, 103-680 days). Among 6487 peripherally inserted central catheters placed, 3435 (53%) were placed within the 2 years before hemodialysis initiation, and 3052 (47%) were placed afterward. Multiple peripherally inserted central catheters were placed in 30% of patients exposed to peripherally inserted central catheters. Recipients of peripherally inserted central catheters were more likely to be women and have comorbid diagnoses and less likely to have received predialysis nephrology care. After adjustment for clinical and demographic factors, peripherally inserted central catheters placed before or after hemodialysis initiation were independently associated with lower likelihoods of transition to any working fistula or graft (hazard ratio for prehemodialysis peripherally inserted central catheter, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 0.91; hazard ratio for posthemodialysis peripherally inserted central catheter, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.73 to 0.89).Peripherally inserted central catheter placement was common and associated with adverse vascular access outcomes. Recognition of potential long-term adverse consequences of peripherally inserted central catheters is essential for clinicians caring for patients with CKD.

Project description:ObjectivesWe aimed to compare the success rates and other catheter-related parameters between peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and non-tunnelled ultrasound-guided central venous catheters (USG-CVCs) including femoral, jugular, brachiocephalic and subclavian lines.DesignThis was a retrospective observational study.SettingThe study was performed in a level III neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) in Qatar, as a single-site study.ParticipantsThis study included 1333 neonates who required CVC insertion in the NICU from January 2016 to December 2018. Of those, we had 1264 PICCs and 69 non-tunnelled USG-CVCs.Outcome measuresThe success rate and other catheter-related complications in the two groups.ResultsThe overall success rate was 88.4% in the USG-CVCs (61/69) compared with 90% in the PICCs (1137/1264) group (p=0.68). However, the first prick success rate was 69.4% in USG-CVCs (43/69) compared with 63.6% in the PICCs (796/1264) group. Leaking and central line-associated blood stream infection (CLABSI) were significantly higher in the USG-CVC group compared with the PICC group (leaking 16.4% vs 2.3%, p=0.0001) (CLABSI 8.2% vs 3.1%, p=0.03). CLABSI rates in the PICC group were 1.75 per 1000 catheter days in 2016 and 3.3 in 2017 compared with 6.91 in 2016 (p=0.0001) and 14.32 in 2017 (p=0.0001) for the USG-CVCs. USG-CVCs had to be removed due to catheter-related complications in 52.5% of the cases compared with 29.9% in PICCs, p=0.001. In 2018, we did not have any non-tunnelled USG-CVCs insertions in our NICU.ConclusionsThe overall complication rate, CLABSI and leaking are significantly higher in non-tunnelled USG-CVCs compared with the PICCs. However, randomised controlled trials with larger sample sizes are desired. Proper central venous device selection and timing, early PICC insertion and early removal approach, dedicated vascular access team development, proper central venous line maintenance, central line simulation workshops and US-guided insertions are crucial elements for patient safety in NICU.

Project description:BackgroundPeripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are used commonly to administer antibiotics to people with cystic fibrosis (CF), but their use can be complicated by venous thrombosis and catheter occlusion.Research questionWhich participant-, catheter-, and catheter management-level attributes are associated with increased risk of complications of PICCs among people with CF?Study design and methodsThis was a prospective observational study of adults and children with CF who received PICCs at 10 CF care centers in the United States. The primary end point was defined as occlusion of the catheter resulting in unplanned removal, symptomatic venous thrombosis in the extremity containing the catheter, or both. Three categories of composite secondary outcomes were identified: difficult line placement, local soft tissue or skin reactions, and catheter malfunction. Data specific to the participant, catheter placement, and catheter management were collected in a centralized database. Risk factors for primary and secondary outcomes were analyzed by multivariate logistic regression.ResultsBetween June 2018 and July 2021, 157 adults and 103 children older than 6 years with CF had 375 PICCs placed. Patients underwent 4,828 catheter-days of observation. Of the 375 PICCs, 334 (89%) were ≤ 4.5 F, 342 (91%) were single lumen, and 366 (98%) were placed using ultrasound guidance. The primary outcome occurred in 15 PICCs for an event rate of 3.11 per 1,000 catheter-days. No cases of catheter-related bloodstream infection occurred. Other secondary outcomes developed in 147 of 375 catheters (39%). Despite evidence of practice variation, no risk factors for the primary outcome and few risk factors for secondary outcomes were identified.InterpretationThis study affirmed the safety of contemporary approaches to inserting and using PICCs in people with CF. Given the low rate of complications in this study, observations may reflect a widespread shift to selecting smaller-diameter PICCs and using ultrasound to guide their placement.

Project description:Background The placement of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) has traditionally relied on measurements and anatomical landmarks. It involves post-placement chest X-rays (CXRs) and occasional repositioning, which incur additional direct and indirect costs, such as delays in care and staff time. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a routine post-procedural CXR in the era of ultrasound and intracavitary electrocardiography (IC-ECG)-guided PICC insertion. Methods A retrospective two-center study was conducted to review the clinical records of all patients who had PICCs in the Venous Access Center of Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute and The Affiliated Qingdao Central Hospital of Qingdao University between 1 January 2019 and 30 June 2020. PICC placement was only available to patients who were 18 years or older, had in-sinus rhythm. The incidence of catheter misplacement after insertion was measured. Cavoatrial junction or the lower third of the superior vena cava (SVC) were defined as ideal catheter tip locations. A logistic regression analysis was performed to examine potential risk factors associated with PICC-related complications and a cost analysis was conducted to assess the economic impact of the use of CXR. Results There were 2,863 samples from 2,653 patients included. The overall incidence of intraprocedural and primary catheter misplacement was 7.3% (n=210) and 0.70% (n=20), respectively. There was a high risk of primary catheter misplacement when the left-arm was chosen for placement [odds ratio (OR): 11.163; 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.720–33.495; P<0.001]. The overall cost of performing CXR for screening of PICC-related complications was $23,858 per year, and that of using CXR to diagnose 1 case of catheter misplacement was $1,789. Conclusions This study confirms that misplacement of PICCs guided by ultrasound and IC-ECG is rare and that postprocedural CXR is very costly. In our setting, routine postprocedural CXR is unnecessary especially when the PICC is catheterized in the right arm, and is not a wise option.

Dataset Information

Magnetic Tracking and Electrocardiography-Guided Tip Confirmation System Versus Fluoroscopy for Placement of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: A Randomized, Noninferiority Comparison.

Publications

Magnetic Tracking and Electrocardiography-Guided Tip Confirmation System Versus Fluoroscopy for Placement of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: A Randomized, Noninferiority Comparison.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets