Explore the vast range of titles available.

Patients in the ICU were assigned to catheter insertion in the subclavian, jugular, or femoral vein. Subclavian catheterization had a lower risk of bloodstream infection and deep-vein thrombosis, and a higher risk of pneumothorax, than catheterization in the other two sites. Subclavian, jugular, and femoral central venous catheterization are associated with infectious, thrombotic, and mechanical complications. 1 Catheter-related bloodstream infection has a significant effect on morbidity, mortality, and health care costs. 2 – 4 The risk of short-term catheter-related bloodstream infection is influenced mainly by extraluminal microbial colonization of the insertion site, 5 and such colonization is also associated with thrombosis. 6 , 7 Although the importance of catheter-related deep-vein thrombosis has been debated, 1 all thromboses have the potential to embolize. In addition, catheter-related deep-vein thrombosis 7 – 9 and pulmonary embolism 10 may remain undiagnosed in critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. 11 We conducted the 3SITES multicenter study to . . .

In patients with thrombocytopenia undergoing placement of a central venous catheter, the risk of grade 2 to 4 bleeding was lower among those who received platelet transfusion than among those who did not.

Objectives This study aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of tunneled peripherally inserted central catheters (T-PICC) vs. conventional PICCs (C-PICC) in adult cancer patients. Methods A multicentre randomized controlled trial was conducted between April 2021 and January 2022 in seven hospitals in China. 564 participants were randomly assigned to T-PICC or C-PICC. These data were collected and compared: the baseline characteristics and catheterization-related characteristics, periprocedural complications, and long-term complications. Results Five-hundred fifty-three participants (aged, 52.6 ± 12.3 years; female, 39.1%) were ultimately analyzed. No significant differences in periprocedural complications were found between the T-PICC and C-PICC groups (all p  > 0.05). Compared with C-PICC, T-PICC significantly reduced the incidence of long-term complications (26.4% vs. 39.9%, p  < 0.001). Specifically, reduced complications were found in central line-associated bloodstream infection (1.8% vs. 5.1%, p  = 0.04), thrombosis (1.1% vs. 4.0%, p  = 0.03), catheter dislodgement (4.7% vs. 10.1%, p  = 0.01), non-infectious oozing (17.3% vs. 28.6%, p  = 0.002), local infection (3.6% vs. 7.6%, p  = 0.04), skin irritation (6.1% vs. 10.9%, p  = 0.046), and reduced unplanned catheter removal (2.2% vs. 7.2%, p  = 0.005). No significant differences were found between T-PICC and C-PICC regarding catheter occlusion (6.5% vs. 5.8%, p  = 0.73) or skin damage (2.2% vs. 2.9%, p  = 0.58). Conclusion T-PICC is safe and effectively reduces long-term complications. Clinical relevance statement The tunneled technique is effective in reducing PICC-related long-term complications. Thus, it is recommended for cancer patients at high risk of PICC-related complications. Trial registration The registration number on https://www.chictr.org.cn/ is ChiCTR2100044632. The name of the trial registry is “A multicenter randomized controlled study of clinical use of tunneled vs. non-tunneled PICC”. Key Points Cather-related complications are associated with the technique of catheterization. Compared with conventional PICC, tunneled PICC reduced catheter-related long-term complications. Tunneled PICC placement provides an alternative catheterization method for cancer patients .

Intravascular-catheter-related infections are frequent life-threatening events in health care, but incidence can be decreased by improvements in the quality of care. Optimisation of skin antisepsis is essential to prevent short-term catheter-related infections. We hypothesised that chlorhexidine–alcohol would be more effective than povidone iodine–alcohol as a skin antiseptic to prevent intravascular-catheter-related infections. In this open-label, randomised controlled trial with a two-by-two factorial design, we enrolled consecutive adults (age ≥18 years) admitted to one of 11 French intensive-care units and requiring at least one of central-venous, haemodialysis, or arterial catheters. Before catheter insertion, we randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) patients via a secure web-based random-number generator (permuted blocks of eight, stratified by centre) to have all intravascular catheters prepared with 2% chlorhexidine–70% isopropyl alcohol (chlorhexidine–alcohol) or 5% povidone iodine–69% ethanol (povidone iodine–alcohol), with or without scrubbing of the skin with detergent before antiseptic application. Physicians and nurses were not masked to group assignment but microbiologists and outcome assessors were. The primary outcome was the incidence of catheter-related infections with chlorhexidine–alcohol versus povidone iodine–alcohol in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01629550 and is closed to new participants. Between Oct 26, 2012, and Feb 12, 2014, 2546 patients were eligible to participate in the study. We randomly assigned 1181 patients (2547 catheters) to chlorhexidine–alcohol (594 patients with scrubbing, 587 without) and 1168 (2612 catheters) to povidone iodine–alcohol (580 patients with scrubbing, 588 without). Chlorhexidine–alcohol was associated with lower incidence of catheter-related infections (0·28 vs 1·77 per 1000 catheter-days with povidone iodine–alcohol; hazard ratio 0·15, 95% CI 0·05–0·41; p=0·0002). Scrubbing was not associated with a significant difference in catheter colonisation (p=0·3877). No systemic adverse events were reported, but severe skin reactions occurred more frequently in those assigned to chlorhexidine–alcohol (27 [3%] patients vs seven [1%] with povidone iodine–alcohol; p=0·0017) and led to chlorhexidine discontinuation in two patients. For skin antisepsis, chlorhexidine–alcohol provides greater protection against short-term catheter-related infections than does povidone iodine–alcohol and should be included in all bundles for prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. University Hospital of Poitiers, CareFusion.

When clinicians need to administer a vasopressor infusion, they are faced with the choice of administration via either peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) or central venous catheter (CVC). Vasopressor infusions have traditionally been administered via central venous catheters (CVC) rather than Peripheral Intra Venous Catheters (PIVC), primarily due to concerns of extravasation and resultant tissue injury. This practice is not guided by contemporary randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence. Observational data suggests safety of vasopressor infusion via PIVC. To address this evidence gap, we have designed the \"Vasopressors Infused via Peripheral or Central Access\" (VIPCA) RCT. The VIPCA trial is a single-centre, feasibility, parallel-group RCT. Eligible critically ill patients requiring a vasopressor infusion will be identified by emergency department (ED) or intensive care unit (ICU) staff and randomised to receive vasopressor infusion via either PIVC or CVC. Primary outcome is feasibility, a composite of recruitment rate, proportion of eligible patients randomised, protocol fidelity, retention and missing data. Primary clinical outcome is days alive and out of hospital up to day-30. Secondary outcomes will include safety and other clinical outcomes, and process and cost measures. Specific aspects of safety related to vasopressor infusions such as extravasation, leakage, device failure, tissue injury and infection will be assessed. VIPCA is a feasibility RCT whose outcomes will inform the feasibility and design of a multicentre Phase-3 trial comparing routes of vasopressor delivery. The exploratory economic analysis will provide input data for the full health economic analysis which will accompany any future Phase-3 RCT.

PurposeThe use of real-time ultrasound (US) has been shown to reduce complications of central venous (CV) catheterization. However, complication rates have not been compared according to insertion points for CV catheterization using US. Accordingly, this study aimed to compare the complication rates of internal jugular vein (IJV) with those of subclavian vein (SCV) catheterization.MethodsThree tertiary academic hospitals in South Korea participated in this multicenter, randomized study. A total of 1484 patients were preoperatively randomized into two groups. The IJV group (n = 742) was cannulated via the right IJV, and the SCV group (n = 742) was cannulated via the right SCV under US guidance. The primary outcome measure was total complication rate. Secondary outcomes included access time for the first attempt, number of attempts, and catheter position.ResultsThe total complication rate did not demonstrate a significant difference between the IJV (0.1%) and SCV (0.7%) groups (P = 0.248). In the IJV group, arterial puncture occurred in 0.1% of patients; in the SCV group, arterial puncture occurred in 0.6% and pneumothorax in 0.1%. The success rate on the first attempt was significantly higher in the IJV group (98.4%) than in the SCV group (95.9%) (P = 0.004). The access time for the first attempt (P < 0.001) and the median number of attempts (P = 0.006) were significantly lower in the IJV group than in the SCV group. More catheter misplacements were observed in the SCV group (5.9%) than in the IJV group (0.4%) (P < 0.001).ConclusionResults demonstrated that the complication rates of IJV and SCV catheterizations using US are very low, showing no superiority of the SCV approach compared to the IJV.

Echogenic needles improve the reflection of the ultrasound beam. The aim of the study was to compare needle performance during ultrasound-guided cannulation of the infraclavicular axillary vein with an in-plane needle approach, using echogenic needles or non-echogenic standard needles. One hundred adult patients undergoing surgical procedures that required a central venous catheter were randomized for either echogenic or non-echogenic needles. The primary outcome was access time. Secondary outcomes encompassed total procedure time, success in first attempt, number of attempts, number of skin punctures, change of site for vascular access, catheter placement, subjective experience with needle visualization and needle procedure, and adverse events. Median (IQR) [range] venous access time was 21 (15–56) [6–440] in echogenic needle group and 26 (14–91) [6–925] in the non-echogenic needle group ( p  = 0.40). No statistically significant differences were found in the secondary outcome measures. One patient (non-echogenic needle group) experienced pneumothorax. In three patients in each group (6%) arterial puncture occurred. Echogenic needles did not significantly improve needle control or safety when used for infraclavicular axillary vein cannulation with an in-plane needle approach. The results indicate that standard needles are appropriate for ultrasound guided subclavian vascular access in a perioperative situation.

Background Axillary vein/subclavian vein (AxV/SCV) and Internal jugular vein (IJV) are commonly used for implantable venous access port (IVAP) implantation in breast cancer patients for chemotherapy. Previous research focused on comparison of complications while patient comfort was ignored. This study aims to compare patient comfort, surgery duration and complications of IVAP implantation between IJV and AxV/SCV approaches. Methods Two hundred forty-eight breast cancer patients were enrolled in this randomized controlled study from August 2020 to June 2021. Patients scheduled to undergo IVAP implantation were randomly and equally assigned to receive central venous catheters with either AxV /SCV or IJV approaches. All patients received comfort assessment using a comfort scale table at day 1, day 2 and day 7 after implantation. Patient comfort, procedure time of operation as well as early complications were compared. Results Patient comfort was significantly better in the AxV/SCV group than that of IJV group in day 1 ( P  < 0.001), day 2 ( P  < 0.001) and day 7( P  = 0.023). Procedure duration in AxV/SCV group was slightly but significantly shorter than IJV group (27.14 ± 3.29 mins vs 28.92 ± 2.54 mins, P  < 0.001). More early complications occurred in AxV/SCV group than IJV group (11/124 vs 2/124, P  = 0.019). No difference of complications of artery puncture, pneumothorax or subcutaneous hematoma between these two groups but significantly more catheter misplacement in AxV/SCV group than IJV group (6/124 vs 0/124, P  = 0.029). Absolutely total risk of complications was rather low in both groups (8.87% in AxV/SCV group and 1.61% in IJV group). Conclusions Our study indicates that patients with AxV/SCV puncture have higher comfort levels than IJV puncture. AxV/SCV puncture has shorter procedure duration but higher risk of early complications, especially catheter misplacement. Both these two approaches have rather low risk of complications. Consequently, our study provides an alternative choice for breast cancer patients to reach better comfort.

Background Maintaining venous access is of great clinical importance. Running a slow continuous infusion to keep the vein open (KVO) is often used in peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs). Previous studies have compared the effects of intermittent flushing and continuous infusion via peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). In this study, we applied KVO to central venous catheters (CVCs) and compared the occlusion rate of this technique with that of the intermittent flushing technique. Method This is a randomized controlled trial of 14 hospitals in China. A total of 250 patients will be recruited in this study, and they will be randomized at a 1:1 ratio. After study inclusion, patients who will undergo CVC insertion will receive intermittent flushing with prefilled saline syringes (control group) or KVO infusion with elastic pumps (test group). All the catheters will be checked for patency by scoping Catheter Injection and Aspiration (CINAS) Classification on Days 3 and 7. The primary outcome is the rate of catheter occlusion in 7 days. Patients will be followed up until 9 days after CVC insertion, catheter occlusion, or catheter removal. The secondary outcomes are the rate of catheter occlusion in 3 days, nurse satisfaction, cost-effectiveness, adverse event rate, catheter-related bloodstream infection rate, catheter-related thrombosis rate, extravasation rate, phlebitis rate, and catheter migration. Discussion We expect that the trial will generate findings that can provide an evidence-based basis for the improvement and optimization of clinical catheter flushing techniques. Trial registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2200064007. Registered on 23 September 2022. https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=177311 .

Objective To compare the incidence of central line associated blood stream infections (CLABSI) with the use of umbilical venous catheters (UVC) or peripherally inserted central cathethers (PICC) as primary vascular access in preterm neonates. Method This was an open-label, two parallel-arm, randomized controlled trial which included hospitalized neonates with birth weight <1250g who required a central venous access on day 1 of life. The neonates were randomized to either UVC or PICC groups and evaluated for the incidence of CLABSI. Results Of the total 238 eligible neonates, 128 and 110 neonates were randomized to the UVC and PICC groups, respectively. The baseline characteristics were comparable in both groups. There was no significant difference in the incidence of CLABSI among the UVC and PICC groups (21.1% vs 18.2%; P = 0.57). Neonates in the PICC group needed multiple attempts at insertion compared to those in the UVC group (43% vs 12%, P = 0.01); more time was needed for PICC line insertion [median (IQR) 20 (15, 40) vs 10 (5, 15) minutes], but had longer duration of the primary line [7 (4, 10) vs 5 (3, 7) days]. Early removal of the line for leakage was higher in the UVC group and local signs of inflammation were higher in the PICC group. The overall incidence of complications was similar between the groups (53% vs 45%, P = 1.00). Conclusion In preterm infants with a birth weight of less than 1250g, the incidence of CLABSI was similar in the UVC and PICC groups when used as a primary central line. The overall complication rates were comparable in the UVC and PICC groups.