Use Of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters Research Articles

Pharmaceutical Analysis of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Requests Increases the Use of Single-Lumen Catheters: A Prospective Pilot Study.

Several studies have suggested a strong relationship between the number of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) lumens and the risk of complications. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of the intervention of a clinical pharmacist (CP) on the number of lumens of PICC inserted and assess PICC-related complications. This prospective monocentric study included all consecutive patients from 5 different units who underwent PICC insertions from September 2017 to March 2018. In the intervention group, the CP validated the pertinence of each PICC request according to the patients' records, choice of device (single or double lumen), and incompatibilities between treatments. The control group consisted of patients who underwent PICC insertions without a CP intervention. Complications were prospectively recorded up to PICC removal. Multivariate analyses adjusted for sex, age, and PICC line duration were performed. In the intervention group, 207 PICCs were inserted, 81.2% (n = 168) were single-lumen devices and 18.8% (n = 39) were double-lumen devices. In the control group (n = 77), the use of single-lumen PICCs was significantly lower (n = 48, 62.3%; P = 0.002). After intervention, the overall complication incidence rate decreased from 4.42 to 3.23 per 1000 catheter days ( P = 0.082). Considering the overall population, 216 single-lumen PICCs were inserted with significantly fewer complications than double-lumens (respectively n = 16, 16/216 = 7.4%, versus n = 15, 15/68 = 22.1%, P = 0.002). The adjusted odds ratio of double-lumen PICC was 3.83 (95% confidence interval, 1.46-10.07; P = 0.007). Our study showed the intervention of a CP in the PICC insertion process could increase the use of single-lumen PICCs and tended to reduce associated complications.

A six-year study of complications related to peripherally inserted central catheters: A multi-center retrospective cohort study in China.

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), the most frequent central venous catheter, are used to provide medical treatments, although long-term PICC-related adverse outcomes are unknown in China. This study systematically investigated PICC-related complications in four Chinese hospitals. Between January 2014 and January 2020, we analyzed the results of 3550 patients with PICC who were referred to four Chinese hospitals. All patients underwent PICC treatment in four Chinese hospitals. Patient-reported signs and symptoms of a putative PICC-related complication or functional were studied. Long-term outcomes and hospitalization costs were also evaluated. An aggregate of 3285 patients were enrolled in the analytic cohort. 58.6% were females and 41.4% were males. The most common reasons for PICC placement included oncologic malignancy and critically ill patients. The majority of PICCs had valved systems (90.7%) and were implanted in the right side (85.5%) and into the basilic vein (87.7%). At least one potential PICC-related problem or adverse effects (AEs) was reported by 67.3% of patients. Central line-associated bloodstream infection (28.1%) and symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (20.7%) were the most common complications. The majority of PICCs were removed for causes other than AEs, with just 723 reported AEs accounting for 22.0% of all PICC removals. The most reasons for PICCs removal were occlusion (425, 12.9%) and exit-site infections (189, 5.8%). This study is the first retrospective study in our country to explore PICC-related complications. While living with a PICC, more than 67.3% of patients report signs and symptoms of at least one PICC-related problem or adverse impacts, such as difficulties with PICC use and poor effects on physical and social function. In this group, PICCs are safe and effective, although the danger of PICC-related problems should not be disregarded.

Assessment of the Complications of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter in Neonates Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit: A Center's Experience in Iran.

Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC), which is inserted through peripheral veins into the superior or inferior vena cava, is used to inject medications or parenteral nutrition in neonates with long-term hospitalization in the intensive care unit. In this study, we assessed the complications of PICC in neonates admitted to the intensive care unit in hospital. In the present retrospective cohort, neonates admitted to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) of Valiasr Hospital during 2015-2018 had been divided into two groups with PICC and without it. Data included the occurrence of septicemia, tachycardia, perforation of large veins, pulmonary hypertension, cardiac tamponade, pericardial effusion, catheter site necrosis, hemorrhage, anemia, pleural effusion, ascites, phlebitis of catheter track and neonatal death, which were collected, using the comprehensive neonatal registry of Valiasr Hospital. Data analysis was performed with regression, mantel-haenszel and independent t-test. Data from 174 neonates with PICC were compared to 207 infants with classic IV-Line. In the exposure group, the gestational age and birth weight were lower. Based on the results of the double logistic regression test, septicemia and hemorrhage in the injection site, independent of other variables, were related to the use of PICC and the risk of septicemia or hemorrhage in the injection site was significantly reduced if PCIC was used (p < 0.01). Using the PICC as a therapeutic procedure in hospitalized neonates in the NICU is a safe method. By improving its replacement skills among physicians and nurses, its side effects are minor and negligible.

Peripherally inserted central catheter-related bloodstream infections in patients with hematological malignancies: A retrospective 7-years single-center study

ObjectivesWe sought to investigate the nature and incidence of bloodstream infection complications and to identify the risk factors of central catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI). MethodsDuring the study period, 291 consecutive patients with hematological malignancies who underwent PICC placement were retrospectively enrolled. We analyzed the covariates that were specified a priori for their association with CRBSI through multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models. The association between each predictor and the related outcome was expressed using hazard ratios (HRs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). ResultsOf 391 peripherally inserted central catheter (PICCs) were inserted in 291 patients for a total of 63,714 catheter days during 7 years, with an infection rate of 0.71/1,000 catheter days. Among the patients with hematological malignancies, those with acute leukemia were prone to CRBSI. Having previous bloodstream infection (BSI) (HR 18.139; 95% CI, 8.19-40.174; P < .0001), the number of PICCs insertions (HR 4.695; 95% CI, 1.842-11.967; P = .001) (twice), (HR 6.794; 95% CI, 1.909-24.181; P = .003) (≥3 times) were significantly associated with CRBSI. Not accompanied by chronic comorbidities (HR 0.34; 95% CI, 0.131-0.887; P = .028) and longer duration of PICC use (days) (HR 0.997; 95% CI, 0.994-0.999; P = .008) might be protective factors preventing CRBSI. ConclusionsOur finding suggests that previous BSI and a higher number of PICC insertions are associated with an increased risk of CRBSI. A lack of chronic comorbidities may help prevent CRBSI.

The use of peripherally inserted central catheter reduced the incidence of phlebitis in heart failure patients: A randomized trial.

During decompensated heart failure, the use of intravenous inotropes can be necessary. With peripheral venous access, prolonged inotrope infusion can cause phlebitis. However, traditional central venous catheters have possible complications. Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) may be an alternative to traditional catheters. Our objective was to compare the incidence of phlebitis between patients with PICC and those with peripheral venous access catheter indwelling. In a randomized clinical trial, the patients were randomized to PICC and control groups, with 40 patients in each group. The inclusion criteria were hospitalized patients with advanced heart failure, ejection fraction of <0.45, and platelet count of >50,000/mm3 and current use of continuous intravenous infusion of dobutamine. The patients were randomly assigned to receive a PICC or keep their peripheral venous access. The primary end point was the occurrence of phlebitis. The PICC and control groups included 40 patients each. The median age was 61.5 years; ejection fraction, 0.24; and dobutamine dose, 7.73 µg/(kg min). Phlebitis occurred in 1 patient (2.5%) in the PICC group and in 38 patients (95.0%) in the control group, with an odds ratio of 0.10% (95% confidence interval: 0.01%-1.60%, p < 0.001). In conclusion, in severe heart failure patients who received intravenous dobutamine, PICC use reduced the incidence of phlebitis when compared to patients with peripheral venous access. Therefore, the PICC use should considered over peripheral venous access for prolonged intravenous therapy in heart failure patients.

Validation and Implementation of the Use of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC) for the Administration of Peripheral Blood Stem Cells (PBSC): A Single-Institution Experience

Background:Infusion of peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) in patients undergoing autologous transplantation (ASCT) has been conventionally performed using central venous catheters (CVC) inserted through the subclavian or internal jugular vein. Peripheral inserted central catheters (PICC) are routinely used for infusion of blood products and medication, but its use for PBSC infusion has not been well established. Our study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of using PICC to deliver PBSC for ASCT through an in-vitro lab-based validation process, followed by a clinical review.Methods: •Lab based validationIn vitro infusion of 6 cryopreserved PBSCs was performed, 3 infused PICC whist 3 via CVC. Each product was thawed for the same amount of time and drained by gravity. Pre-infusion and post-infusion total nucleated cell counts (TNC), CD34 counts and CD34 viability of the PBSCs were analysed by flow-cytometry and compared using paired T test. In vitro infusion rates were also compared between PICC and CVC groups. •Clinical Outcome AnalysisThe clinical study included 31 patients (Lymphoma N=21, myeloma N=5, Others, N=4) who underwent ASCT at National University Cancer Institute, Singapore (NCIS) from September 2019 to July 2021. All patients had a 19G BARDS dual lumen PICC inserted in either the brachial or basilic veins and used for PBSC infusion. The PBSC infusion rate, infusion associated complications, time to absolute neutrophil count (ANC) >1, and platelet count engraftment >100K were analysed.Clinical outcomes in the lymphoma cohort, who received BEAM conditioning (N=17) were also compared with a control group, matched for conditioning, cell dose and age, who had PBSC infused via CVC.Results: •In vitro findings:Overall flow rates for infusion through PICC was slower (mean 0.1mls/s vs 0.3mls/s, p < 0.05). However, there were no significant % differences in TNC counts (5% vs 9%, p=0.4), CD34 counts (17% vs 15%, p=0.9) and viability (4% vs 7%, p=0.2) between pre and post infusion samples for PICC and CVC.. •Clinical findings:30 patients (Lymphoma N=21, myeloma N=5, N=4) were included. 15 (50% of patients) had a for ASCT while 15 (50%) had an existing PICC. For patients with an existing PICC, the median duration of catheter in situ was 86 days. New lines were inserted 2-7 days prior to the PBSC infusion. The median age of the patients was 54 (20-71) with 19 males (63%). . There were 5 infusion related complications, 2 in an existing PICC and 3 in new PICCs. 4 were related to slow flow rate and 1 was related to sediments seen in the line. None led to a need for alternative line for infusion. The median time to ANC recovery was 10 (range 9-14), 10 (range 9-11) and 11 days (range 10-12), while the median time to platelet engraftment was 18 (range 10-195), 20 (range 15-55) and 22 (16-85 days) for the lymphoma BEAM conditioning (N=17), lymphoma Carmustine/ Thiotepa conditioning (N=4), and the myeloma (N=5) cohorts respectively.Clinical outcomes in the lymphoma cohort, who also compared with a control group matched for conditioning, cell dose and conditioning. The in-vivo infusion rate was slower in the PICC group, compared to the CVC group (3.1 mls/min vs 4.5mls/min, p<0.05).There was however no differences in engraftment with median time to ANC recovery 10 days (range 9-14) vs 11 days (range 9-13) (p>0.05) and median time to platelet engraftment 18 (range 14-195) vs 19 days (range 14 -57) (p>0.05) in the PICC vs CVC groups respectively.Conclusion:Our in-vitro and clinical findings confirmed that the use of PICC for PBSC infusion is safe and efficacious and reduces the need for CVC insertion. Our findings have led to change in clinical practice with utilization of PICCs for PBSC infusions for ASCT. DisclosuresNo relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Substantial Variation in Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Use and Outcomes in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies: A Multi-Center Study

Background:Use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) has grown rapidly in patients with hematologic malignancies. Studies demonstrating the safety of PICCs in hematologic malignancies, however, are largely single-center, retrospective designs focused on the outpatient setting. Little is known about inpatient PICC use in patients with hematologic malignancies and how such use varies across hospitals.Methods:Data was prospectively collected between November 2013 and December 2019 from a cohort of patients admitted at one of 42 Michigan hospitals participating in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium (HMS). Patients had a diagnosis of a hematologic malignancy and had a PICC placed during their hospital stay. Adult medical patients admitted to a general ward or intensive care unit were eligible for data collection and data were collected from the medical record using a standardized template. The indications for PICC placement, catheter characteristics, and associated complications from 17 hospitals with more than 25 discrete patients with hematologic malignancy were included in a comparative analysis. Major complications were defined as central line associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), catheter occlusion, and venous thromboembolism (VTE). Differences across hospitals were tested using the Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous variables and Pearson chi-square test for categorical variables.Results:A total of 2092 PICCs placed in 1798 patients were included in the analysis with a median (IQR) dwell time of 15 (6-30) days. Most patients were male (n=1242, 59.4%), white (n=1720, 82.2%), and 50 to 69 years old (n=950, 45.4%). Patients were primarily admitted to large hospitals (≥375 beds: n=1429, 68.8%) that were teaching centers (n=1600, 76.5%) in metropolitan locations (n=2000, 95.6%). Leukemia (n=752, 36.0%) and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (n=409, 19.6%) were the most represented malignancies. The most common primary indication for PICC placement was administration of chemotherapy (n=1180, 56.4%). The majority of PICCs were double lumen (n=1457, 69.6%), most often placed by vascular access nurses (n=1520, 72.7%). A concurrent central venous catheter was present at the time of PICC placement in 12.2% (n=264) of patients. A major complication event occurred in over 1 in 4 PICCs placed (n=562, 26.9%). Catheter occlusion occurred in 17.8% (n=372), CLABSI in 8.2% (n=171), and VTE in 3.8% (n=80) of PICCs respectively.There was wide variation in PICC indications, characteristics, and outcomes across hospitals. Placement of PICCs for chemotherapy varied from 33.3% to 85.3% (p<0.001). Similarly, there was a wide range of placement for antibiotics (2.8% to 32.4%, p<0.001), transfusion of blood products (0.0% to 9.7%, p<0.001), medications requiring central access (0% to 26.7%, p<0.001), difficult access and blood draws (1.8% to 33.3%, p<0.001), and administration of total parenteral nutrition (0.0% to 14.3%, p=0.002). There was significant variation in the number of lumens used: single (5.6% to 37.9%, p<0.001), double (51.9% to 93.0%, p<0.001), or triple (0.0% to 30.8%, p<0.001). The incidence of major complications spanned from 9.7% to 40.8% (p=0.001). Rate of catheter occlusion had the widest range (0.0% to 36.7%, p<0.001). The differences between rates of VTE (0.0% to 8.7%, p=0.29) and CLABSI (1.4% to 15.9%, p< 0.20) were not statistically significant. Patient mortality ranged from 2.8% to 19.4% (p<0.001).Conclusion:Appropriate venous access is critical to the care of patients with hematologic malignancy. This study demonstrates wide variation in the practice patterns and outcomes for PICCs in patients with hematologic malignancies across hospitals in Michigan. Further work is necessary to further understand and improve decision making around choosing vascular access in this vulnerable population. [Display omitted] DisclosuresZhang: SIMR, Inc: Ended employment in the past 24 months, Research Funding; AmerisourceBergen: Current Employment. Sood: Bayer: Consultancy.

Assessment of the MAGIC recommendations in context of evolving evidence based on the use of PICC in ICU.

The goal of the 2015 Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC) was to define indications and appropriate practices for peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) use; however, MAGIC recommendations virtually reduced the use of PICC in hospital settings, including critical care. The aim of this review is to present an assessment of the MAGIC guidelines, considering contemporary evidence to date. The validity of the MAGIC recommendations and their applicability to current practice are called into question given important concerns with the methodology for their development (e.g. high volume of clinical scenarios for evaluation) and the supporting evidence used. There is a considerable amount of contemporary evidence not considered in MAGIC that reports on evolving practices, techniques, and technologies targeted to reduce complications associated with central venous access devices (CVADs). Recent evidence dictates that CVADs are necessary in the intensive care unit (ICU), and that PICCs are a safe, reliable, and appropriate type of central lines, which cannot be replaced in several ICU situations. In light of evolving evidence and practice, as well as the methodological concerns identified, the MAGIC guidelines should be revisited. It is also recommended to create a clinical assessment tool that identifies potential uses of specific CVADs, based on patient needs. The choice of the CVAD should be based on unique clinical considerations and current scientific evidence, not on fears informed by antiquated data.

"With a PICC line, you never miss": The role of peripherally inserted central catheters in hospital care for people living with HIV/HCV who use drugs.

People who use drugs (PWUD), and especially those who inject drugs, are at increased risk of acquiring bloodborne infections (e.g., HIV and HCV), experiencing drug-related harms (e.g., abscesses and overdose), and being hospitalized and requiring inpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy delivered through a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC). The use of PICC lines with PWUD is understood to be a source of tension in hospital settings but has not been well researched. Drawing on theoretical and analytic insights from "new materialism," we consider the assemblage of sociomaterial elements that inform the use of PICCs. This paper draws on n=50 interviews conducted across two related qualitative research projects within a program of research about the impact of substance use on hospital admissions from the perspective of healthcare providers (HCPs) and people living with HIV/HCV who use drugs. This paper focuses on data about PICC lines collected in both studies. The decision to provide, maintain, or remove a PICC is based on a complex assemblage of factors (e.g., infections, bodies, drugs, memories, relations, spaces, temporalities, and contingencies) beyond whether parenteral intravenous antibiotic therapy is clinically indicated. HCPs expressed concerns about the risk posed by past, current, and future drug use, and contact with non-clinical spaces (e.g., patient's homes and the surrounding community), with some opting for second-line treatments and removing PICCs. The majority of PWUD described being subjected to threats of discharge and increased monitoring despite being too ill to use their PICC lines during past hospital admissions. A subset of PWUD reported using their PICC lines to inject drugs as a harm reduction strategy, and a subset of HCPs reported providing harm reduction-centred care. Our analysis has implications for theorizing the role of PICC lines in the care of PWUD and identifies practical guidance for engaging them in productive and non-judgemental discussions about the risks of injecting into a PICC line, how to do it safely, and about medically supported alternatives.

Prevalence of complications associated with the use of a peripherally inserted central catheter in newborns: A systematic review protocol.

BackgroundThe improper handling of a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) in newborns (NBs) may result in mechanical and infectious complications.AimThe aim of this systematic review (SR) is to estimate the prevalence of complications associated with the use of PICC in NBs.MethodsWe will utilize PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Google Scholar for the databases search. There will be no restrictions on the search for languages, and observational studies will be selected wherein the prevalence rate of complications associated with the use of PICC in NBs has been presented or can be calculated. The systematic review will follow the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Two reviewers will independently select studies and assess their eligibility using predefined criteria. Using standardized forms, two other reviewers will independently extract data from each included study, and the random-effects pooled prevalence will be calculated in the meta-analysis with the respective 95% confidence intervals. The methodological quality of the studies will be assessed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Review Manager V.5.3.5 will be used for the qualitative and quantitative synthesis. A protocol was developed and published on PROSPERO (Registration number CRD42020211983).Expected resultsThis SR will show the prevalence of complications caused by the inadequate management of PICC in NBs, which is information considered important for clinical practice improvement.

Reducing PICC Placement in Pediatric Osteomyelitis: A Diamond in the Deimplementation Rough?

Reducing PICC Placement in Pediatric Osteomyelitis: A Diamond in the Deimplementation Rough?

National Trends of Acute Osteomyelitis and Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters in Children.

Although a growing body of evidence suggests that early transition to oral antimicrobial therapy is equally efficacious to prolonged intravenous antibiotics for treatment of acute pediatric osteomyelitis, little is known about the pediatric trends in peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) placements. Using a national database, we examined incidence rates of pediatric hospitalizations for acute osteomyelitis in the United States from 2007 through 2016, as well as the trends in PICC placement, length of stay (LOS), and cost associated with these hospitalizations. This was a retrospective, serial cross-sectional study of the National Inpatient Sample database from 2007 through 2016. Patients ≤18 years of age with acute osteomyelitis were identified by using appropriate diagnostic codes. Outcomes measured included PICC placement rate, LOS, and inflation-adjusted hospitalization costs. Weighted analysis was reported, and a hierarchical regression model was used to analyze predictors. The annual incidence of acute osteomyelitis increased from 1.0 to 1.8 per 100 000 children from 2007 to 08 to 2015 to 16 (P < .0001), whereas PICC placement rates decreased from 58.8% to 5.9% (P < .0001). Overall, changes in LOS and inflation-adjusted hospital costs were not statistically significant. PICC placements and sepsis were important predictors of increased LOS and hospital costs. Although PICC placement rates for acute osteomyelitis significantly decreased in the face of increased incidence of acute osteomyelitis in children, LOS and hospital costs for all hospitalizations remained stable. However, patients receiving PICC placements had longer LOS. Further studies are needed to explore the long-term outcomes of reduced PICC use.

Should PICCs be avoided in patients with certain solid organ cancers?

6572 Background: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are widely utilized in oncology. Previous studies have shown a high risk of catheter-related thrombosis and bloodstream infection in the uniquely susceptible oncologic population; however, most studies are limited by single center, outpatient, retrospective designs. Therefore, we performed a multi-center study to further describe PICC use and complications in the solid tumor population within the inpatient setting. Methods: Data was collected on PICC lines inserted across 50 hospitals in Michigan from November 2013 to December 2019. Patients with a solid tumor diagnosis at time of PICC insertion were selected (n = 3,956). Indications for PICC placement, catheter characteristics, and associated complications were compared by metastatic (n = 1,488) and non-metastatic (n = 2,468) disease. Complications were also compared by cancer type. Major complications were defined as central line associated blood stream infection (CLABSI), catheter occlusion, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and pulmonary embolism (PE). Paired t-test and Pearson Chi-square test were used for analyses. Results: PICCs were most commonly placed for antibiotics (n = 1232, 31%) and chemotherapy (n = 907, 23%). The majority of catheters were multi-lumen with 61% (n = 2362) double lumen and 8% (n = 326) triple lumen. Median dwell time was 13 days. Notably, 17% of patients had another central venous catheter (CVC) at time of placement. Metastatic patients were more likely to have a PICC placed for difficult venous access (24.7% vs 17.7%, p &lt; 0.001) and total parenteral nutrition (20.2% vs 12.3%, p &lt; 0.001) as well as to have a current CVC in place (22% vs 14%, p &lt;.001). Non-metastatic patients were more likely to have a PICC placed for chemotherapy (24.1% vs 20.9%, p = 0.02) and have a longer median dwell time (13.0d vs 11.0d, p = 0.04). Of all solid tumor patients, 15.5% (n = 612) experienced a major complication. Catheter occlusion occurred most frequently (n = 402, 10.2%) followed by DVT (n = 138, 3.5%), CLABSI (n = 107, 2.7%), and PE (n = 22, 0.6%). Catheter occlusion was more likely to occur in non-metastatic patients (11% vs 8.8%, p = 0.03). Rates of CLABSI, DVT, and PE did not differ significantly by presence of metastases. Certain cancers had a higher frequency of major complications when compared to the average solid tumor cohort rate of 15.5%; these were malignant brain (17.2%), pancreatic (18.4%), uterine (18.5%), and ovarian tumors (24.2%). Conclusions: PICCs are associated with significant complications in 16% of patients with solid organ cancers. Alternate access such as an implanted port should be considered; alternatively, limiting PICC placement in the presence of concurrent CVC or minimizing use of multiple lumen PICCs may limit complications and resultant morbidity. Specifically, these considerations may apply preferentially to patients with certain solid organ cancers with higher rates of PICC associated morbidity.

Improving peripherally inserted central catheter appropriateness and reducing device-related complications: a quasiexperimental study in 52 Michigan hospitals

BackgroundThe Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC) provides evidence-based criteria for peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) use. Whether implementing MAGIC improves PICC appropriateness and reduces complications is unknown.MethodsA quasiexperimental...

PP326 Health Economic Value Of The Midline Catheter Versus Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter In Korean Inpatient Setting

IntroductionIt is estimated that over 90 percent of hospitalized patients will receive some form of vascular access device (VAD) for their treatment. Currently, patients requiring medium-term catheterization often have peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) placed, which are expensive, time consuming and usually for long-term catheterization. Midline catheters (MCs) are VADs placed in deep peripheral veins, with a dwell time of up to 29 days. The study aimed to evaluate if using MCs over PICCs has any clinical and economic benefits.MethodsA cost-calculator was developed in Microsoft Excel 2013 to demonstrate the clinical and economic differences of using MCs over PICCs in an inpatient setting in Korea. A literature review was conducted and included eighteen studies that showed MCs have positive clinical, patient, economic, and institutional outcomes. The model captured clinical outcomes such as usage duration, complications, and costs. The time horizon was one year, and various model inputs were derived from the literature review.ResultsFor an annual catheter utilization of MCs over PICCs, the total cost-saving was USD 3,764,994. Total treatment costs for MCs were USD 7,230,825 and for PICCs were USD 8,987,922. The total treatment costs included device cost, complication cost and labor cost related to using both MCs and PICCs. For MCs versus PICCs, device costs were USD 6,554,317 versus USD 6,563,356, complication costs were USD 106,749 versus USD 982,417, and labor costs were USD 569,759 versus USD 1,442,149.ConclusionsIn both the base and sensitivity analyses, results showed that MCs can be an impressive cost-saving option among patients with unnecessary PICC use in Korea. Among patients who require medium-term catheterization and use PICCs even when not targeted for central line insertion, MCs are a more cost-effective option, and MCs will benefit these patients with lesser complication rates. MCs are a suitable alternative with clinical and economic benefits that could lead to lower burden on patients and healthcare systems.

Use of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC) for the Infusion of Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Products Is Safe and Effective

Introduction: Cryopreserved peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) products are thawed at bedside and infused by gravity through a large bore central venous line (CVL). Peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) are routinely used for infusion of blood products and medications but are rarely used to administer hematopoietic progenitor cells (HPC). The rationale for this practice is not well established but the general assumption is that the smaller gauge sizes of the PICC and resultant decreased infusion rates would damage the HPCs. The use of PICC to infuse HPCs can have many benefits, such as patient comfort, cost effectiveness, and reducing potential line-related complications from the insertion of a large bore, and often additional, CVL. These line-related complications include infections, pneumothorax, haematomas, etc. The aim of this prospective observational study is to present the experience of using PICC in lymphoma patients receiving autologous PBSC transplantation in terms of the safety and efficacy. Methodology: From September 2019 to June 2020, a prospective observational study involving 16 patients with lymphoma undergoing autologous PBSC transplantation was conducted in National University Cancer Institute, Singapore (NCIS). The patients were divided into 2 groups - the first group included 9 lymphoma patients who received their autologous PBSC transplant via PICC, while the second/control group included 7 lymphoma patients who received the treatment via a large bore CVL. The types of PICC and CVL inserted for the patients were standardized - 19G dual lumen PICC and 7Fr triple lumen non-tunnelled CVL respectively. All the CVLs were inserted in the right internal jugular vein, while the PICC were inserted in either the brachial or basilic veins. All patients in both groups underwent BEAM conditioning transplantation regime prior to autologous PBSC transplantation. The duration of the catheter-in-situ, catheter-associated complications, PBSC infusion rate, CD34 cell dose, total nucleated cell dose infused, and the time for absolute neutrophil and platelet count engraftment were analysed for the study. Results: The baseline characteristics and results for both groups are shown in Table 1. It is important to highlight that for the first group using PICC, none of them had any adverse event from PBSC transplantation. 44.4% of the patients had only minor issues during the PBSC infusion, mainly due to slower infusion rate and sediments were seen in the tubing of the PICC. These issues were quickly overcome by manual flushing of the PICC with normal saline fluid boluses. Only 1 out of 9 had a mild skin irritation at the insertion site of the PICC. For the second/control group using CVL, 43% of them had both PICC and CVL in-situ at one point of their treatment. These patients underwent an additional procedure for CVL insertion and the CVL was removed within 2 weeks of insertion. Only 1 out of 7 patients had minor issue of severe nausea during the PBSC infusion. There was no adverse event during the PBSC infusion or catheter associated complication. Conclusion: Our study showed that the use of PICC is safe and effective for patients receiving autologous PBSC transplantation, compared to the conventional large bore central venous catheters. Despite having longer PBSC infusion rate for PICC, the time taken for neutrophil and platelet recovery between both groups were comparable and there were no serious complications. Table Disclosures Chng: Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria.

Association of Infectious Disease Physician Approval of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter With Appropriateness and Complications

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are frequently used to deliver intravenous antimicrobial therapy. However, inappropriate PICC use may lead to patient harm. To evaluate whether infectious disease physician approval prior to PICC placement for intravenous antimicrobials is associated with more appropriate device use and fewer complications. This cohort study of 21 653 PICCs placed for a primary indication of intravenous antimicrobial therapy between January 1, 2015, and July 26, 2019, was conducted in 42 hospitals participating in a quality collaborative across Michigan among hospitalized medical patients. Appropriateness of PICCs was defined according to the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters as a composite measure of (1) single-lumen catheter use, (2) avoiding use of PICCs for 5 days or less, and (3) avoiding use of PICCs for patients with chronic kidney disease (defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate <45 mL/min/1.73 m2). Complications related to PICCs included catheter occlusion, deep vein thrombosis, and central line-associated bloodstream infection. The association between infectious disease physician approval, device appropriateness, and catheter complications was assessed using multivariable models, adjusted for patient comorbidities and hospital clustering. Results were expressed as odds ratios with 95% CIs. A total of 21 653 PICCs were placed for intravenous antimicrobials (11 960 PICCs were placed in men [55.2%]; median age, 64.5 years [interquartile range, 53.4-75.4 years]); 10 238 PICCs (47.3%) were approved by an infectious disease physician prior to placement. Compared with PICCs with no documented approval, PICCs with approval by an infectious disease physician were more likely to be appropriately used (72.7% [7446 of 10 238] appropriate with approval vs 45.4% [5180 of 11 415] appropriate without approval; odds ratio, 3.53; 95% CI, 3.29-3.79; P < .001). Furthermore, approval was associated with lower odds of a PICC-related complication (6.5% [665 of 10 238] with approval vs 11.3% [1292 of 11 415] without approval; odds ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.50-0.61). This cohort study suggests that, when PICCs were placed for intravenous antimicrobial therapy, infectious disease physician approval of PICC insertion was associated with more appropriate device use and fewer complications. Policies aimed at ensuring infectious disease physician approval prior to PICC placement for antimicrobials may improve patient safety.

Safe use of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters for chemotherapy of solid malignancies in adult patients: A 1-year monocentric, prospectively-assessed, unselected cohort of 482 patients.

Aim of this study was to analyze the overall complication and failure rates of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters (PICCs), in a 1-year consecutive unselected cohort of 482 adult patients, affected by non-hematological malignancies undergoing chemotherapy. Adult outpatients (aged 18-75 years), with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2, bearing solid tumors and candidates for intravenous chemotherapy were eligible for the study. Exclusion criteria were active infections, coagulopathy (defined as platelet count <50,000/μL and/or prothrombin time more than 18 s), life expectancy <6 months, or inability to give written informed consent. Devices were all implanted in an outpatients' hospital facility, following predefined evidence-based institutional guidelines and protocols by a PICC-dedicated team at the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, Italy, during the 12-month period from January 1 to December 31, 2019. Five-hundred PICCs were implanted in a cohort of 482 patients during the time interval of this study. Thirty devices were overall removed (6.2%), 23 as a consequence of a complication occurred, and seven inadvertently. The inserted PICCs accounted for a total of 49,718 catheter days in situ, median duration was 85.5 days [interquartile range (IQR): 56-146]. Overall there were 42 (8.7%) complications, corresponding to 0.84 catheter-adverse events (CAE)/1000 PICC-days (95% CI: 0.61-1.14). There were N = 13 (2.7%) thromboses, N = 11 (2.3%) irreversible occlusions, N = 7 (1.5%) accidental removals, N = 5 (1.0%) infections [two Catheter Related Blood Stream Infection (CRBSI) and three exit site/local infection], N = 3 (0.6%) ruptures and N = 3 (0.6%) primary or secondary malpositions. This large prospective study supports the increasing use of PICCs in adult oncology outpatients treated in specialized centers with chemotherapy for non-hematological malignancies. In this clinical setting, PICC failure occurred in 6% only of the inserted devices.

Influence of Infectious Disease Physician Approval on Appropriateness of PICC Use and Outcomes

Background:Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are frequently used to deliver intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy after discharge from the hospital. Infectious disease (ID) physicians are often consulted prior to PICC placement, but whether their approval influences PICC appropriateness and complications is not known. Methods: Using data from the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium (HMS) on PICCs placed in critically ill and hospitalized medical patients between January 1, 2015, and July 26, 2019, we examined the association between ID physician approval of PICC insertion for IV antibiotics and device appropriateness and outcomes. Appropriateness was defined according to the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC) as a composite measure of (1) avoiding PICC use for durations ≤5 days; (2) using single-lumen instead of multilumen catheters; and (3) avoiding PICC use in patients with chronic kidney disease (eGFR&gt;45 mL/min). The associations between ID approval of PICC use and odds of PICC-related complications (eg, deep vein thrombosis, central-line–associated bloodstream infection, and catheter occlusion) were also assessed. Multivariable models adjusting for patient severity of illness and hospital-level clustering were fit to both outcomes. Results were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% CIs. Results: Data from 36,594 patients who underwent PICC placement across 42 Michigan hospitals were included in the analysis. In total, 21,653 (55%) PICCs were placed for the indication of IV antibiotics; 14,935 (69%) of these had a documented ID consultation prior to placement, whereas 6,718 (31%) did not. Of the 14,935 PICCs with an ID consultation, 10,238 (69%) had ID approval documented prior to device placement (Fig. 1). Compared to no approval, PICCs approved by ID prior to insertion were more likely to be appropriate (OR, 3.51; 95% CI, 3.28–3.77; P &lt; .001). Specifically, approval was associated with higher single-lumen use (OR, 5.13; 95% CI, 4.72–5.58; P &lt; .001), less placement of PICCs with dwell times ≤ 5 days (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.25–0.32; P &lt; .001), and less frequent use in patients with chronic kidney disease (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73–0.87; P &lt; .001). ID approval of PICCs prior to insertion was associated with a significantly lower odds of PICC-related complications (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.51–0.64) (Table 1). Conclusions: ID approval of PICC use for IV antibiotic therapy in hospitalized patients was associated with greater appropriateness and fewer complications. Policies aimed at ensuring ID review prior to PICC use may help improve patient and device safety.Funding: NoneDisclosures:Valerie M. Vaughn reports contract research for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, the NIH, the SHEA, and the APIC. She also reports fees from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation Speaker’s Bureau, the CDC, the Pew Research Trust, Sepsis Alliance, and The Hospital and Health System Association of Pennsylvania.

A Quality Improvement Project to Reduce Unnecessary Use of Multilumen PICCs

Background: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are an increasingly common vascular access device. At our institution, &gt;4,000 devices are placed per year by a trained team of vascular access nurses. Although PICCs are generally safe and effective, they do carry the risk of infection and thrombosis, and this risk increases exponentially with increasing number of lumens. As part of a multidisciplinary quality improvement effort to address rising CLABSI rates, we designed interventions to improve PICC utilization. Methods: The project team used 6-σ methodology, specifically following the DMAIC (define, measure, analyze, implement, control) framework to guide analysis and interventions. Process mapping, semistructured interviews with key stakeholders, electronic surveys, and audits were performed to identify gaps and inform interventions. The interventions consisted of 3 components: changes to the electronic ordering system, education (presentations to ordering providers and an online toolkit), and clinical decision support in the form of a team of vascular-access subject-matter experts who provided guidance on line selection. Results: In total, 4,655 PICCs and 434 midlines were inserted in the 12 months before the intervention, and 7,457 PICCs and 929 midlines were placed in the 24 months after the intervention. Following the implementation of the intervention, proportions of triple-lumen catheter utilization decreased from 31.9% to 22.3% (P &lt; .0001). Concurrently, the proportion of single-lumen catheters has increased from 28.5% to 41.9% (P &lt; .0001). Overall PICC utilization decreased in the postintervention period from an average of 387.9 PICCs placed per month to 310.7. The proportion of midline catheters increased from 8.5% of total lines inserted to 11.4% in the postintervention period (P &lt; .001). Conclusions: Our intervention reduced overall PICC use and triple-lumen PICC use and increased relative utilization of single-lumen PICCs and midline catheters. Optimization of electronic orders, in conjunction with targeted education and decision support, can have a sustained impact on provider ordering behaviors and can shift the culture of utilization, even in a large academic medical center with frequent turnover of trainees.Funding: NoneDisclosures: Consulting fee- Merck (Priya Sampathkumar)