OBJECTIVE: Central venous catheterization (CVC) is integral to the emergency department (ED) treatment of critically ill patients, such as those receiving early goal-directed therapy for severe sepsis. No previous studies have described the overall use of CVC in community EDs. The objective of this study was to estimate the overall frequency and temporal trends in CVC use in a sample of patients visiting community EDs. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study of 2.97 million patient visits at 28 community EDs (range of annual visits, 10 837-110 136) from January 2004 to February 2008. Data were obtained from a community-based research consortium. Central venous catheterization procedures were aggregated at the hospital level for each study year. Trends in CVC use were evaluated using linear regression. RESULTS: Three thousand four hundred eighty-nine patient visits (0.12% of all ED patient visits) had a CVC procedure performed in the ED. The overall rate of CVC procedures per 1000 ED patient visits increased from 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI(95%)], 0.80-0.95) in 2004 to 1.62 (CI(95%), 1.38-1.91) procedures in 2008 (P value for trend = .003). There was wide variability in the frequency of CVC procedures performed among EDs, ranging from a low of 0.27 (CI(95%), 0.18-0.42) to a high of 7.58 (CI(95%), 6.27-9.17) procedures per 1000 ED visits. The CVC procedure rates were lower in the 8 rural EDs (0.99 CVCs per 1000 ED patient visits [CI(95%), 0.91-1.07] compared with the 20 urban EDs (1.22 CVCs [CI(95%), 1.18-1.27]; P < .001). An increasing rate of CVC procedures during the study period was observed in urban EDs (0.84-1.94 CVCs per 1000 ED patient visits; P value for trend = .005) but not in rural EDs (1.1-0.93; P value for trend = .41) during the study period. CONCLUSION: The overall rate of CVC increased from 2004 to 2008. However, there was a wide variation among Eds, and the CVC rate was lower in rural compared with urban EDs. The increase in CVC use in urban EDs may reflect more intensive therapy in the management of ED patients with acute illness or injury. Future efforts are needed to optimize best practices for the use of CVC in community ED practices and to characterize factors responsible for urban rural differences in the rate of CVC procedures. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: Central venous catheterization (CVC) is integral to the emergency department (ED) treatment of critically illpatients, such as those receiving early goal-directed therapy for severe sepsis. No previous studies have described the overall use of CVC in community EDs. The objective of this study was to estimate the overall frequency and temporal trends in CVC use in a sample of patients visiting community EDs. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study of 2.97 million patient visits at 28 community EDs (range of annual visits, 10 837-110 136) from January 2004 to February 2008. Data were obtained from a community-based research consortium. Central venous catheterization procedures were aggregated at the hospital level for each study year. Trends in CVC use were evaluated using linear regression. RESULTS: Three thousand four hundred eighty-nine patient visits (0.12% of all ED patient visits) had a CVC procedure performed in the ED. The overall rate of CVC procedures per 1000 ED patient visits increased from 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI(95%)], 0.80-0.95) in 2004 to 1.62 (CI(95%), 1.38-1.91) procedures in 2008 (P value for trend = .003). There was wide variability in the frequency of CVC procedures performed among EDs, ranging from a low of 0.27 (CI(95%), 0.18-0.42) to a high of 7.58 (CI(95%), 6.27-9.17) procedures per 1000 ED visits. The CVC procedure rates were lower in the 8 rural EDs (0.99 CVCs per 1000 ED patient visits [CI(95%), 0.91-1.07] compared with the 20 urban EDs (1.22 CVCs [CI(95%), 1.18-1.27]; P < .001). An increasing rate of CVC procedures during the study period was observed in urban EDs (0.84-1.94 CVCs per 1000 ED patient visits; P value for trend = .005) but not in rural EDs (1.1-0.93; P value for trend = .41) during the study period. CONCLUSION: The overall rate of CVC increased from 2004 to 2008. However, there was a wide variation among Eds, and the CVC rate was lower in rural compared with urban EDs. The increase in CVC use in urban EDs may reflect more intensive therapy in the management of ED patients with acute illness or injury. Future efforts are needed to optimize best practices for the use of CVC in community ED practices and to characterize factors responsible for urban rural differences in the rate of CVC procedures. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Jonathan Elmer; Daniel J Pallin; Shan Liu; Catherine Pearson; Yuchiao Chang; Carlos A Camargo; Steven M Greenberg; Jonathan Rosand; Joshua N Goldstein Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Daniel Theodoro; Margaret A Olsen; David K Warren; Kathleen M McMullen; Phillip Asaro; Adam Henderson; Michael Tozier; Victoria Fraser Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Nicholas M Mohr; Karisa K Harland; Dan M Shane; Azeemuddin Ahmed; Brian M Fuller; James C Torner Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2016-07-26 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Nicholas M Mohr; Karisa K Harland; Uche E Okoro; Brian M Fuller; Kalyn Campbell; Morgan B Swanson; Stephen Q Simpson; Edith A Parker; Luke J Mack; Amanda Bell; Katie DeJong; Brett Faine; Anne Zepeski; Keith Mueller; Elizabeth Chrischilles; Christopher R Carpenter; Michael P Jones; Marcia M Ward Journal: J Comp Eff Res Date: 2021-01-20 Impact factor: 1.744