OBJECTIVE: To compare cumulative complication rates of peripherally (PICC) and centrally (CICVC) inserted central venous catheters, including catheter-related large vein thrombosis (CRLVT), central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), and line insertion-related complications in neurological intensive care patients. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study and detailed chart review for 431 consecutive PICCs and 141 CICVCs placed in patients under neurological intensive care from March 2008 through February 2010. Cumulative incidence of CRLVT, CLABSI, and line insertion-related complications were compared between PICC and CICVC groups. Risk factors for CRLVT including mannitol therapy during dwell time, previous history of venous thromboembolism, surgery longer than 1h during dwell time, and line placement in a paretic arm were also compared between groups. RESULTS: During the study period, 431 unique PICCs were placed with cumulative incidence of symptomatic thrombosis of 8.4%, CLABSI 2.8%, and line insertion-related complications 0.0%. During the same period, 141 unique CICVCs were placed with cumulative incidence of symptomatic thrombosis of 1.4%, CLABSI 1.4%, and line insertion-related complications 0.7%. There was a statistically significant difference in CRLVT with no difference in CLABSI or line insertion-related complications. CONCLUSIONS: In neurological critical care patients, CICVCs appear to have a better risk profile compared to PICCs, with a decreased risk of CRLVT. As use of PICCs in critical care patients increases, a prospective randomized trial comparing PICCs and CICVCs in neurological critical care patients is necessary to assist in choosing the appropriate catheter and to minimize risks of morbidity and mortality associated with central venous access.
OBJECTIVE: To compare cumulative complication rates of peripherally (PICC) and centrally (CICVC) inserted central venous catheters, including catheter-related large vein thrombosis (CRLVT), central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), and line insertion-related complications in neurological intensive care patients. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study and detailed chart review for 431 consecutive PICCs and 141 CICVCs placed in patients under neurological intensive care from March 2008 through February 2010. Cumulative incidence of CRLVT, CLABSI, and line insertion-related complications were compared between PICC and CICVC groups. Risk factors for CRLVT including mannitol therapy during dwell time, previous history of venous thromboembolism, surgery longer than 1h during dwell time, and line placement in a paretic arm were also compared between groups. RESULTS: During the study period, 431 unique PICCs were placed with cumulative incidence of symptomatic thrombosis of 8.4%, CLABSI 2.8%, and line insertion-related complications 0.0%. During the same period, 141 unique CICVCs were placed with cumulative incidence of symptomatic thrombosis of 1.4%, CLABSI 1.4%, and line insertion-related complications 0.7%. There was a statistically significant difference in CRLVT with no difference in CLABSI or line insertion-related complications. CONCLUSIONS: In neurological critical care patients, CICVCs appear to have a better risk profile compared to PICCs, with a decreased risk of CRLVT. As use of PICCs in critical care patients increases, a prospective randomized trial comparing PICCs and CICVCs in neurological critical care patients is necessary to assist in choosing the appropriate catheter and to minimize risks of morbidity and mortality associated with central venous access.
Authors: Thomas W Conlon; Adam S Himebauch; Anne Marie Cahill; Blair M Kraus; Chinonyerem R Madu; Mark D Weber; Carol A Czajka; Ruby L Baker; Torron M Brinkley; Melanie D Washington; Anne Marie Frey; Eileen M Nelson; Cara T Jefferies; Charlotte Z Woods-Hill; Heather A Wolfe; Daniela H Davis Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Hayley B Gershengorn; Allan Garland; Andrew Kramer; Damon C Scales; Gordon Rubenfeld; Hannah Wunsch Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Priya Sriskandarajah; Katharine Webb; David Chisholm; Ravi Raobaikady; Kim Davis; Natalie Pepper; Mark E Ethell; Mike N Potter; Bronwen E Shaw Journal: Thromb J Date: 2015-06-25
Authors: Mary Hammes; Amishi Desai; Shravani Pasupneti; John Kress; Brian Funaki; Sydeaka Watson; Jean Herlitz; Jane Hines Journal: Clin Nephrol Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 0.975
Authors: Paula Parás-Bravo; María Paz-Zulueta; Raquel Sarabia-Lavin; Francisco Jose Amo-Setién; Manuel Herrero-Montes; Encarnación Olavarría-Beivíde; Mercedes Rodríguez-Rodríguez; Blanca Torres-Manrique; Carlos Rodríguez-de la Vega; Vanesa Caso-Álvarez; Laura González-Parralo; Francisco Manuel Antolín-Juárez Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-09-02 Impact factor: 3.240