Frédéric Glauser1, Stephane Breault2, Fabio Rigamonti3, Charalampos Sotiriadis2, Anne-Marie Jouannic2, Salah D Qanadli4. 1. Department of Angiology, University Hospital of Lausanne, Rue du Bugon 46, CH-1011, Lausanne, Switzerland. 2. Department of Radiology, Cardio-Thoracic and Vascular Unit, University Hospital of Lausanne, Rue du Bugnon 46, CH-1011, Lausanne, Switzerland. 3. Division of Cardiology, Geneva University Hospitals, Rue Gabrielle Perret-Gentil 4, CH-1211, Geneva, Switzerland. 4. Department of Radiology, Cardio-Thoracic and Vascular Unit, University Hospital of Lausanne, Rue du Bugnon 46, CH-1011, Lausanne, Switzerland. salah.qanadli@chuv.ch.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:Peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) use continues to increase, leading to the development of a blind bedside technique (BST) for placement. The aim of our study was to compare the BST with the fluoroscopically guided technique (FGT), with specific regard to catheter tip position (CTP). MATERIALS AND METHODS:One hundred eighty patients were randomized to either the BST or the FGT. All procedures were done by the same interventional team and included postprocedural chest X-ray to assess CTP. Depending on the international guidelines for optimal CTP, patients were classified in three types: optimal, suboptimal not needing repositioning, and nonoptimal requiring additional repositioning procedures. Fisher's test was used for comparisons. RESULTS:One hundred seventy-one PICCs were successful inserted. In the BST groups, 23.3% of placements were suboptimal and 30% nonoptimal, requiring repositioning. In the FGT group, 5.6% were suboptimal and 1.1% nonoptimal. Thus, suboptimal and nonoptimal CTP were significantly lower in the FGT group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION:Tip malposition rates are high when using blind BST, exposing the patient to an increased risk of deep venous thrombosis and catheter malfunction. Using the FGT or emerging technologies that could help tip positioning are recommended, especially for long-term indications. KEY POINTS: • Bedside and fluoroscopy guided techniques are commonly used for PICC placement. • Catheter malposition is the major technical issue with the bedside technique. • Catheter malposition occurred in 53% of patients with the bedside technique.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) use continues to increase, leading to the development of a blind bedside technique (BST) for placement. The aim of our study was to compare the BST with the fluoroscopically guided technique (FGT), with specific regard to catheter tip position (CTP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred eighty patients were randomized to either the BST or the FGT. All procedures were done by the same interventional team and included postprocedural chest X-ray to assess CTP. Depending on the international guidelines for optimal CTP, patients were classified in three types: optimal, suboptimal not needing repositioning, and nonoptimal requiring additional repositioning procedures. Fisher's test was used for comparisons. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-one PICCs were successful inserted. In the BST groups, 23.3% of placements were suboptimal and 30% nonoptimal, requiring repositioning. In the FGT group, 5.6% were suboptimal and 1.1% nonoptimal. Thus, suboptimal and nonoptimal CTP were significantly lower in the FGT group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION:Tip malposition rates are high when using blind BST, exposing the patient to an increased risk of deep venous thrombosis and catheter malfunction. Using the FGT or emerging technologies that could help tip positioning are recommended, especially for long-term indications. KEY POINTS: • Bedside and fluoroscopy guided techniques are commonly used for PICC placement. • Catheter malposition is the major technical issue with the bedside technique. • Catheter malposition occurred in 53% of patients with the bedside technique.
Entities:
Keywords:
Blind bedside technique; Fluoroscopically guided technique; Intensive care unit; Peripherally inserted central catheters; Tip malposition
Authors: T Venkatesan; N Sen; P J Korula; N R S Surendrababu; J P Raj; P John; S Christopher Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2006-11-22 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: Bradley L Fricke; John M Racadio; Tracy Duckworth; Lane F Donnelly; Robert M Tamer; Neil D Johnson Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jo Caers; Christel Fontaine; Vincent Vinh-Hung; Johan De Mey; Gerrit Ponnet; Chris Oost; Jan Lamote; Jacques De Greve; Benjamin Van Camp; Patrick Lacor Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2004-11-05 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Soo Buem Cho; Hye Jin Baek; Sung Eun Park; Ho Cheol Choi; Sang Min Lee; Kyungsoo Bae; Kyung Nyeo Jeon; Kyeong Hwa Ryu; Jin Il Moon; Bo Hwa Choi; Ji Young Ha Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 1.817