Explore the vast range of titles available.

Use of totally implantable venous-access ports (TIVAPs) is standard practice for patients with diseases such as solid-tumour cancers, haematological malignancies, and chronic digestive diseases. Use of TIVAPs allows long-term administration of venotoxic compounds, improves patients' quality of life, and reduces the risk of infection. Microbial contamination, formation of pathogenic biofilms, and infection, however, are associated with morbidity, mortality, and increased health-care costs. Local and systemic complications or infections related to specific pathogens might lead to device removal. Alternatively, conservative treatment with combined systemic antibiotics and antibiotic lock therapy might be useful. We discuss in-vitro and in-vivo basic and clinical research findings on the epidemiology, diagnosis, and prevention of TIVAP-related infections, the current challenges to management, promising strategies, and some treatments in development that are likely to improve outcomes of TIVAP-related infections, with a particular focus on antibiotic lock therapy.

The use of ultrasound (US) has been proposed to reduce the number of complications and to increase the safety and quality of central venous catheter (CVC) placement. In this review, we describe the rationale for the use of US during CVC placement, the basic principles of this technique, and the current evidence and existing guidelines for its use. In addition, we recommend a structured approach for US-guided central venous access for clinical practice. Static and real-time US can be used to visualize the anatomy and patency of the target vein in a short-axis and a long-axis view. US-guided needle advancement can be performed in an \"out-of-plane\" and an \"in-plane\" technique. There is clear evidence that US offers gains in safety and quality during CVC placement in the internal jugular vein. For the subclavian and femoral veins, US offers small gains in safety and quality. Based on the available evidence from clinical studies, several guidelines from medical societies strongly recommend the use of US for CVC placement in the internal jugular vein. Data from survey studies show that there is still a gap between the existing evidence and guidelines and the use of US in clinical practice. For clinical practice, we recommend a six-step systematic approach for US-guided central venous access that includes assessing the target vein (anatomy and vessel localization, vessel patency), using real-time US guidance for puncture of the vein, and confirming the correct needle, wire, and catheter position in the vein. To achieve the best skill level for CVC placement the knowledge from anatomic landmark techniques and the knowledge from US-guided CVC placement need to be combined and integrated.

To evaluate the incidence and risk factors for catheter-related central vein thrombosis in ICU patients. Observational prospective multicenter study. An 8-bed surgical ICU, a 10-bed surgical cardiovascular ICU, and a 10-bed medical-surgical ICU. During an 18-month period, 265 internaljugular or subclavian catheters were included. Veins were explored by duplex scanning performed just before or < 24 h after catheter removal. Suspected risk factors of catheter-related central vein thrombosis were recorded. None. Fifty-seven catheters were excluded from the analysis. Therefore 208 catheters were analyzed. Mean age of patients was 64+/-15 years, simplified acute physiologic score was 12+/-5, organ system failure score at insertion was 1+/-1, and mean duration of catheterization was 9+/-5 days. A catheter-related internal jugular or subclavian vein thrombosis occurred in 33% of the cases (42% [95% confidence interval (CI), 34 to 49%] and 10% [95% CI, 3 to 18%], respectively). Thrombosis was limited in 8%, large in 22%, and occlusive in 3% of the cases. Internal jugular route (relative risk [RR], 4.13; 95% CI, 1.72 to 9.95), therapeutic heparinization (RR 0.47; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.99), and age >64 years (RR, 2.44; 95% CI, 2.05 to 3.19) were independently associated with catheter-related thrombosis. Moreover, the risk of catheter-related sepsis was 2.62-fold higher when thrombosis occurred (p=0.011). Catheter-related central vein thrombosis is a frequent complication of central venous catheterization in ICU patients and is closely associated with catheter-related sepsis.

The optimal duration of infusion set use to prevent life-threatening catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) is unclear. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and costs of 7-day (intervention) versus 4-day (control) infusion set replacement to prevent CRBSI in patients with central venous access devices (tunnelled cuffed, non-tunnelled, peripherally inserted, and totally implanted) and peripheral arterial catheters. We did a randomised, controlled, assessor-masked trial at ten Australian hospitals. Our hypothesis was CRBSI equivalence for central venous access devices and non-inferiority for peripheral arterial catheters (both 2% margin). Adults and children with expected greater than 24 h central venous access device–peripheral arterial catheter use were randomly assigned (1:1; stratified by hospital, catheter type, and intensive care unit or ward) by a centralised, web-based service (concealed before allocation) to infusion set replacement every 7 days, or 4 days. This included crystalloids, non-lipid parenteral nutrition, and medication infusions. Patients and clinicians were not masked, but the primary outcome (CRBSI) was adjudicated by masked infectious diseases physicians. The analysis was modified intention to treat (mITT). This study is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12610000505000 and is complete. Between May 30, 2011, and Dec, 9, 2016, from 6007 patients assessed, we assigned 2944 patients to 7-day (n=1463) or 4-day (n=1481) infusion set replacement, with 2941 in the mITT analysis. For central venous access devices, 20 (1·78%) of 1124 patients (7-day group) and 16 (1·46%) of 1097 patients (4-day group) had CRBSI (absolute risk difference [ARD] 0·32%, 95% CI −0·73 to 1·37). For peripheral arterial catheters, one (0·28%) of 357 patients in the 7-day group and none of 363 patients in the 4-day group had CRBSI (ARD 0·28%, −0·27% to 0·83%). There were no treatment-related adverse events. Infusion set use can be safely extended to 7 days with resultant cost and workload reductions. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Over the past two decades, ultrasound (US) has become widely accepted to guide safe and accurate insertion of vascular devices in critically ill patients. We emphasize central venous catheter insertion, given its broad application in critically ill patients, but also review the use of US for accessing peripheral veins, arteries, the medullary canal, and vessels for institution of extracorporeal life support. To ensure procedural safety and high cannulation success rates we recommend using a systematic protocolized approach for US-guided vascular access in elective clinical situations. A standardized approach minimizes variability in clinical practice, provides a framework for education and training, facilitates implementation, and enables quality analysis. This review will address the state of US-guided vascular access, including current practice and future directions.

Background During central venous catheterization (CVC), ultrasound (US) guidance has been shown to reduce mechanical complications and increase success rates compared to the anatomical landmark (AL) technique. However, the impact of US guidance on catheter-related infections remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the risk of catheter-related infection with US-guided CVC versus AL technique. Methods A systematic search on MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science databases was conducted until July 31, 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of intervention (NRSI) comparing US-guided versus AL-guided CVC placement were included. The primary outcome was a composite outcome including all types of catheter-related infection: catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs), central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs), catheter colonization, or any other type of reported infection. The secondary outcomes included individual infection types and mortality at day-28. Subgroup analyses based on study type and operator experience were also performed. Results Pooling twelve studies (8 RCTs and 4 NRSI), with a total of 5,092 CVC procedures (2072 US-guided and 3020 AL-guided), US-guided CVC was associated with a significant reduction in catheter-related infections compared with the AL technique (risk ratio (RR) = 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53–0.88). In the RCT subgroup, the pooled RR was 0.65 (95% CI 0.49–0.87). This effect was more pronounced in procedures performed by experienced operators (RR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.41–0.89). In inexperienced operators, the infection risk reduction was not statistically significant. The pooled analysis of CRBSIs and CLABSIs also favored US guidance (RR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.48–0.87). Conclusion US-guided CVC placement significantly reduces the risk of catheter-related infections compared to the AL technique, particularly when performed by experienced operators. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42022350884. Registered 13 August 2022.

Purpose Indwelling central venous catheters (CVCs) have been increasingly used to enable delivery of intravenous chemotherapy. We aimed to compare the safety and cost of two commonly used CVCs, peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICCs) and ports, in the delivery of chemotherapy in patients with non-haematological malignancies. Methods Seventy patients were randomly assigned to receive either a PICC or a port. The primary endpoint was occurrence of major complications, which required removal of the CVC and secondary endpoints included occurrence of any complications. Results Port devices were associated with fewer complications compared with PICC lines (hazard ratio of 0.25, CI, 0.09–0.86, P  = 0.038). Major complication rate was lower in the port arm compared to the PICC arm (0.047 versus 0.193 major complications/100 catheter days, P  = 0.034) with 6 versus 20 % of patients experiencing major complications, respectively. Thrombosis, the most common complication, was significantly higher in the PICC arm compared to the port arm (25 versus 0 %, P  = 0.013). Quality of life and cost estimates did not differ significantly between the two arms. Conclusions Port devices are associated with a lower risk of complications, with no difference in cost, compared to PICC lines in patients with non-haematological malignancies receiving intravenous chemotherapy.

Central Line–Associated Bloodstream InfectionsThe author reviews the patient, provider, and device factors that contribute to central line–associated bloodstream infections and discusses preventive strategies.

The securement of centrally inserted central venous catheters is crucial for their safe use. However, a standardized approach to centrally inserted central venous catheters securement has not been established, and securement methods remain controversial. This study is aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of integrated securement device with suture securement for centrally inserted central venous catheters, analyzing the differences in the incidence rates of catheter-related complications between the two methods, thereby providing evidence to inform clinical decision-making regarding centrally inserted central venous catheter securement strategies. From May to June 2025, 271 hospitalized patients with indwelling centrally inserted central venous catheters at a tertiary hospital in Zhejiang, China, were enrolled in this study. Demographic characteristics and catheter insertion details were collected for all participants on the day of catheter placement. Comfort scores were assessed within 48–72 h post-insertion, and patients were monitored daily until catheter removal for complications including catheter dislodgement (complete or partial), catheter-associated skin injury, and catheter-related bloodstream infection. Chi-square tests and Mann-Whitney U test were used, as appropriate, to compare complication rates between patients managed with the two different securement methods. The enrolled patients had a mean age of 63.46 ± 14.13 years, with a slightly higher proportion of males (57.6%) than females. The majority of catheters were placed in surgical patients (84.5%), with double-lumen catheters predominating (93.4%). Right-sided insertion was the most common approach(97.8%). The mean catheter dwell time was 9.01 ± 4.62 days. No significant differences were observed between the suture cohort and the integrated securement device cohort regarding complete catheter dislodgement, partial catheter dislodgement, or catheter-associated skin injury. Neither cohort experienced catheter-related bloodstream infections. However, the integrated securement device cohort demonstrated higher comfort scores and longer average maintenance intervals compared to the suture cohort, with both differences being statistically significant. The integrated securement device could be suggested as a “safe alternative” to suture securement for centrally inserted central venous catheters stabilization, and simultaneously improves patient comfort, extends maintenance intervals, may reduces nursing workload.

Despite ultrasound guidance for central venous catheterization (CVC), the first-attempt success rate has remained around 52.6−62.1%. A significant reason is that the needle can sometimes be dislodged from the punctured vein during hand shifts. Here, a novel one-hand guidewire introducer (OGI) kit was developed to perform guidewire insertion in the central vein, eliminating hand shifts. To establish a protocol, the OGI kit was validated using a central line training phantom. A total of 48 randomized trials of guidewire insertion in the internal jugular vein in eight pigs were performed using either the conventional kit (group A) or the OGI kit (group B). All trials were technically successful with all eight pigs. First-attempt success rate (50% vs. 75%, p  = 0.035) and global rating scale (12 (5−15) vs. 14 (8−15), p  = 0.011) were significantly lower in group A than in group B. The number of needle redirections and guidewire insertions, time to guidewire insertion, and procedure-related complications were significantly higher in group A than in group B. Guidewire insertion using a novel OGI kit could be a promising approach for real-time ultrasound-guided CVC as it offers greater clinical usefulness.