Dataset Information

Peripherally inserted central catheter procedure at the bedside by a nephrologist is safe and successful.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) use among critically ill patients with or without acute kidney injury (AKI) has gradually increased. Ultrasound-guided bedside PICC insertion in intensive care units (ICU) has been reported to be safe and effective. Reports of PICC insertion by a nephrologist without fluoroscopy, however, are relatively rare.

Methods

This retrospective study included patients (n = 224) who had a PICC inserted by a single nephrologist at Samsung Changwon Hospital from January 2019 to June 2020. Group 1 patients (n = 98) had PICCs inserted under ultrasound guidance, while group 2 patients (n = 126) had PICCs inserted under fluoroscopic guidance. Success rates, multiple puncture rates, and malposition rates were compared between the two groups.

Results

Underlying comorbidities (sepsis, AKI, ventilator use, and shock) were more common in group 1 than in group 2. Success rates were comparable between the two groups (93.9% vs. 97.6%, P = 0.171). Multiple puncture rate among successful cases (4.1% vs. 0.0%, P = 0.035) was higher in group 1 than group 2. Excluding central vein occlusion cases, malposition occurred only one in group 1.

Conclusion

Bedside PICC insertion by a nephrologist is easy and safe to perform in comorbid patients who are difficult to move to the angiography room. The success rate of ultrasound-guided PICC insertions was comparable to that of PICC insertion performed under fluoroscopic guidance. In the life-threatening ICU setting, PICCs can be successfully placed by the interventional nephrologists.

SUBMITTER: Cho S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8041643 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Abstract Background Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and midlines are commonly used devices for reliable vascular access. Infection and thrombosis are the main adverse effects of these catheters. We aimed to evaluate the relative risk of complications from midlines and PICCs. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. The primary outcomes were catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) and thrombosis. Secondary outcomes evaluated included mortality, failure to complete therapy, catheter occlusion, phlebitis, and catheter fracture. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Results Of 8368 citations identified, 20 studies met the eligibility criteria, including 1 RCT and 19 observational studies. Midline use was associated with fewer patients with CRBSI compared with PICCs (odds ratio [OR], 0.24; 95% CI, 0.15–0.38). This association was not observed when we evaluated risk per catheter. No significant association was found between catheters when evaluating risk of localized thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. A subgroup analysis based on location of thrombosis showed higher rates of superficial venous thrombosis in patients using midlines (OR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.48–3.57). We did not identify any significant difference between midlines and PICCs for the secondary outcomes. Conclusions Our findings suggest that patients who use midlines might experience fewer CRBSIs than those who use PICCs. However, the use of midline catheters was associated with greater risk of superficial vein thrombosis. These findings can help guide future cost-benefit analyses and direct comparative RCTs to further characterize the efficacy and risks of PICCs vs midline catheters. PICC and midlines are commonly used devices in hospitalized patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the complications of the use of midline catheter vs. PICC, focusing on catheter-related bloodstream infection and thrombosi