Cargando…

Peripherally inserted central catheters versus non-tunnelled ultrasound-guided central venous catheters in newborns: a retrospective observational study

OBJECTIVES: We 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. DESIGN: This was a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bayoumi, Mohammad A A, van Rens, Roland, Chandra, Prem, Shaltout, Deena, Gad, Ashraf, Elmalik, Einas E, Hammoudeh, Samer
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8987782/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35387831
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058866
_version_ 1784682818942533632
author Bayoumi, Mohammad A A
van Rens, Roland
Chandra, Prem
Shaltout, Deena
Gad, Ashraf
Elmalik, Einas E
Hammoudeh, Samer
author_facet Bayoumi, Mohammad A A
van Rens, Roland
Chandra, Prem
Shaltout, Deena
Gad, Ashraf
Elmalik, Einas E
Hammoudeh, Samer
author_sort Bayoumi, Mohammad A A
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: We 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. DESIGN: This was a retrospective observational study. SETTING: The study was performed in a level III neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) in Qatar, as a single-site study. PARTICIPANTS: This 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 MEASURES: The success rate and other catheter-related complications in the two groups. RESULTS: The 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. CONCLUSIONS: The 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8987782
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89877822022-04-22 Peripherally inserted central catheters versus non-tunnelled ultrasound-guided central venous catheters in newborns: a retrospective observational study Bayoumi, Mohammad A A van Rens, Roland Chandra, Prem Shaltout, Deena Gad, Ashraf Elmalik, Einas E Hammoudeh, Samer BMJ Open Paediatrics OBJECTIVES: We 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. DESIGN: This was a retrospective observational study. SETTING: The study was performed in a level III neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) in Qatar, as a single-site study. PARTICIPANTS: This 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 MEASURES: The success rate and other catheter-related complications in the two groups. RESULTS: The 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. CONCLUSIONS: The 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. BMJ Publishing Group 2022-04-06 /pmc/articles/PMC8987782/ /pubmed/35387831 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058866 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Paediatrics
Bayoumi, Mohammad A A
van Rens, Roland
Chandra, Prem
Shaltout, Deena
Gad, Ashraf
Elmalik, Einas E
Hammoudeh, Samer
Peripherally inserted central catheters versus non-tunnelled ultrasound-guided central venous catheters in newborns: a retrospective observational study
title Peripherally inserted central catheters versus non-tunnelled ultrasound-guided central venous catheters in newborns: a retrospective observational study
title_full Peripherally inserted central catheters versus non-tunnelled ultrasound-guided central venous catheters in newborns: a retrospective observational study
title_fullStr Peripherally inserted central catheters versus non-tunnelled ultrasound-guided central venous catheters in newborns: a retrospective observational study
title_full_unstemmed Peripherally inserted central catheters versus non-tunnelled ultrasound-guided central venous catheters in newborns: a retrospective observational study
title_short Peripherally inserted central catheters versus non-tunnelled ultrasound-guided central venous catheters in newborns: a retrospective observational study
title_sort peripherally inserted central catheters versus non-tunnelled ultrasound-guided central venous catheters in newborns: a retrospective observational study
topic Paediatrics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8987782/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35387831
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058866
work_keys_str_mv AT bayoumimohammadaa peripherallyinsertedcentralcathetersversusnontunnelledultrasoundguidedcentralvenouscathetersinnewbornsaretrospectiveobservationalstudy
AT vanrensroland peripherallyinsertedcentralcathetersversusnontunnelledultrasoundguidedcentralvenouscathetersinnewbornsaretrospectiveobservationalstudy
AT chandraprem peripherallyinsertedcentralcathetersversusnontunnelledultrasoundguidedcentralvenouscathetersinnewbornsaretrospectiveobservationalstudy
AT shaltoutdeena peripherallyinsertedcentralcathetersversusnontunnelledultrasoundguidedcentralvenouscathetersinnewbornsaretrospectiveobservationalstudy
AT gadashraf peripherallyinsertedcentralcathetersversusnontunnelledultrasoundguidedcentralvenouscathetersinnewbornsaretrospectiveobservationalstudy
AT elmalikeinase peripherallyinsertedcentralcathetersversusnontunnelledultrasoundguidedcentralvenouscathetersinnewbornsaretrospectiveobservationalstudy
AT hammoudehsamer peripherallyinsertedcentralcathetersversusnontunnelledultrasoundguidedcentralvenouscathetersinnewbornsaretrospectiveobservationalstudy