Jeffrey J Fletcher1,2, Thomas J Wilson3, Venkatakrishna Rajajee3,4,5, William R Stetler3, Teresa L Jacobs3,4,5, Kyle M Sheehan3, Devin L Brown4,5. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Michigan, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Room 3552 TC, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-5338, USA. jflet10121@aol.com. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, Bronson Methodist Hospital, Kalamazoo, MI, USA. jflet10121@aol.com. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Michigan, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Room 3552 TC, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-5338, USA. 4. Department of Neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 5. Department of Stroke Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Observational studies suggest peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) are associated with a high risk of catheter-related large vein thrombosis (CRLVT) in critically ill neurologic patients. We evaluated the difference in thrombosis risk between PICCs and centrally inserted central venous catheters (CICVCs). METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, randomized controlled trial of critically ill adult neurologic patients admitted to neurological and trauma critical care units at two level I trauma centers. Patients were randomized to receive either a PICC or CICVC and undergo active surveillance for CRLVT or death within 15 days of catheter placement. RESULTS: In total, 39 subjects received a PICC and 41 received a CICVC between February 2012 and July 2015. The trial was stopped after enrollment of 80 subjects due to feasibility affected by slow enrollment and funding. In the primary intention-to-treat analysis, 17 (43.6 %) subjects that received a PICC compared to 9 (22.0 %) that received a CICVC experienced the composite of CRLVT or death, with a risk difference of 21.6 % (95 % CI 1.57-41.71 %). Adjusted common odds ratio of CRLVT/death was significantly higher among subjects randomized to receive a PICC (adjusted OR 3.08; 95 % CI 1.1-8.65). The higher adjusted odds ratio was driven by risk of CRLVT, which was higher in those randomized to PICC compared to CICVC (adjusted OR 4.66; 95 % CI 1.3-16.76) due to increased large vein thrombosis without a reduction in proximal deep venous thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: Our trial demonstrates that critically ill neurologic patients who require a central venous catheter have significantly lower odds of ultrasound-diagnosed CRLVT with placement of a CICVC as compared to a PICC.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Observational studies suggest peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) are associated with a high risk of catheter-related large vein thrombosis (CRLVT) in critically ill neurologicpatients. We evaluated the difference in thrombosis risk between PICCs and centrally inserted central venous catheters (CICVCs). METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, randomized controlled trial of critically ill adult neurologicpatients admitted to neurological and trauma critical care units at two level I trauma centers. Patients were randomized to receive either a PICC or CICVC and undergo active surveillance for CRLVT or death within 15 days of catheter placement. RESULTS: In total, 39 subjects received a PICC and 41 received a CICVC between February 2012 and July 2015. The trial was stopped after enrollment of 80 subjects due to feasibility affected by slow enrollment and funding. In the primary intention-to-treat analysis, 17 (43.6 %) subjects that received a PICC compared to 9 (22.0 %) that received a CICVC experienced the composite of CRLVT or death, with a risk difference of 21.6 % (95 % CI 1.57-41.71 %). Adjusted common odds ratio of CRLVT/death was significantly higher among subjects randomized to receive a PICC (adjusted OR 3.08; 95 % CI 1.1-8.65). The higher adjusted odds ratio was driven by risk of CRLVT, which was higher in those randomized to PICC compared to CICVC (adjusted OR 4.66; 95 % CI 1.3-16.76) due to increased large vein thrombosis without a reduction in proximal deep venous thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: Our trial demonstrates that critically ill neurologicpatients who require a central venous catheter have significantly lower odds of ultrasound-diagnosed CRLVT with placement of a CICVC as compared to a PICC.
Entities:
Keywords:
Central venous catheters; Upper extremity deep venous thrombosis; Vascular access devices; Venous thrombosis
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Jordan J Elm; Yuko Palesch; J Donald Easton; Anne Lindblad; William Barsan; Robert Silbergleit; Robin Conwit; Catherine Dillon; Mary Farrant; Holly Battenhouse; Aaron Perlmutter; S Claiborne Johnston Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2014-06-12 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Manuela Bonizzoli; Stefano Batacchi; Giovanni Cianchi; Giovanni Zagli; Francesco Lapi; Valentina Tucci; Giacomo Martini; Simona Di Valvasone; Adriano Peris Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2010-09-21 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: James D Paauw; Heather Borders; Nichole Ingalls; Sarah Boomstra; Susan Lambke; Brian Fedeson; Austin Goldsmith; Alan T Davis Journal: JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr Date: 2008 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.016