Adrian Vk Wong1, Nitin Arora2, Olusegun Olusanya3, Ben Sharif4, Robert M Lundin5, A Dhadda6, S Clarke1, R Siviter1, M Argent6, Gavin Denton2, Anna Dennis2, Angela Day2, Tamas Szakmany6,7. 1. Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, UK. 2. Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK. 3. Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, UK. 4. Cwm Taf University Health Board, Royal Glamorgan Hospital, Llantrisant, UK. 5. School of Medicine, Cardiff University, UK. 6. Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport, UK. 7. Department of Anaesthesia Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Division of Population Medicine, Cardiff University, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Central venous catheters are inserted ubiquitously in critical care and have roles in drug administration, fluid management and renal replacement therapy. They are also associated with numerous complications. The true number of central venous catheters inserted per year and the proportion of them associated with complications are unknown in the UK. METHODS: We performed a prospective audit at five hospitals, as a feasibility pilot for a larger, nationwide audit. Using a novel secure online data collection platform, developed earlier and adapted for this project, all central venous catheters inserted for patients admitted to the Intensive Care Units were documented at five pilot sites across the UK. RESULTS: A total of 117 data collection forms were submitted. Users found the electronic data collection system easy to use. All data fields were ready for analysis immediately after data input. Out of the 117 central venous catheters, 17 were haemodialysis catheters and five pulmonary artery introducers. Experienced practitioners (at least three years' experience) inserted 85% of the central venous catheters. The site of insertion was the internal jugular vein for 80%, femoral for 12% and subclavian for 8% of central venous catheters. Most central venous catheters were inserted in ICU (49%) or theatres (42%). Ultrasound was used for 109 (93%) of central venous catheter insertions and its use was not associated with fewer complications. In 15 cases venopuncture was attempted more than once (all with ultrasound) and this was associated with significantly increased risk of complications. There were eight immediate complications (6.8%): five related to venopuncture and inability to pass a guidewire, two carotid artery punctures and one associated with significant arrhythmia. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the ease and feasibility of collecting detailed descriptive data on central line insertion and its immediate complications in the UK over two weeks. In our proposed nationwide audit, organisation-level data on local policies and standard operating procedures is required to complete the picture on this important aspect of intensive care practice.
BACKGROUND: Central venous catheters are inserted ubiquitously in critical care and have roles in drug administration, fluid management and renal replacement therapy. They are also associated with numerous complications. The true number of central venous catheters inserted per year and the proportion of them associated with complications are unknown in the UK. METHODS: We performed a prospective audit at five hospitals, as a feasibility pilot for a larger, nationwide audit. Using a novel secure online data collection platform, developed earlier and adapted for this project, all central venous catheters inserted for patients admitted to the Intensive Care Units were documented at five pilot sites across the UK. RESULTS: A total of 117 data collection forms were submitted. Users found the electronic data collection system easy to use. All data fields were ready for analysis immediately after data input. Out of the 117 central venous catheters, 17 were haemodialysis catheters and five pulmonary artery introducers. Experienced practitioners (at least three years' experience) inserted 85% of the central venous catheters. The site of insertion was the internal jugular vein for 80%, femoral for 12% and subclavian for 8% of central venous catheters. Most central venous catheters were inserted in ICU (49%) or theatres (42%). Ultrasound was used for 109 (93%) of central venous catheter insertions and its use was not associated with fewer complications. In 15 cases venopuncture was attempted more than once (all with ultrasound) and this was associated with significantly increased risk of complications. There were eight immediate complications (6.8%): five related to venopuncture and inability to pass a guidewire, two carotid artery punctures and one associated with significant arrhythmia. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the ease and feasibility of collecting detailed descriptive data on central line insertion and its immediate complications in the UK over two weeks. In our proposed nationwide audit, organisation-level data on local policies and standard operating procedures is required to complete the picture on this important aspect of intensive care practice.
Entities:
Keywords:
Central venous catheter; audit; complications; quality improvement; vascular access
Authors: Karen K Y Koo; Jack C J Sun; Qi Zhou; Gordan Guyatt; Deborah J Cook; Stephen D Walter; Maureen O Meade Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 7.598
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: P Frykholm; A Pikwer; F Hammarskjöld; A T Larsson; S Lindgren; R Lindwall; K Taxbro; F Oberg; S Acosta; J Akeson Journal: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Date: 2014-03-05 Impact factor: 2.105
Authors: Tamas Szakmany; Robert M Lundin; Ben Sharif; Gemma Ellis; Paul Morgan; Maja Kopczynska; Amrit Dhadda; Charlotte Mann; Danielle Donoghue; Sarah Rollason; Emma Brownlow; Francesca Hill; Grace Carr; Hannah Turley; James Hassall; James Lloyd; Llywela Davies; Michael Atkinson; Molly Jones; Nerys Jones; Rhodri Martin; Yousef Ibrahim; Judith E Hall Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: A Bodenham Chair; S Babu; J Bennett; R Binks; P Fee; B Fox; A J Johnston; A A Klein; J A Langton; H Mclure; S Q M Tighe Journal: Anaesthesia Date: 2016-02-17 Impact factor: 6.955
Authors: Gavin Denton; Lindsay Green; Marion Palmer; Anita Jones; Sarah Quinton; Simon Giles; Andrew Simmons; Andrew Choyce; Sean Munnelly; Daniel Higgins; Gavin D Perkins; Nitin Arora Journal: J Intensive Care Soc Date: 2018-10-01
Authors: Paola Nicolini; Andrea Arighi; Elisa Gherbesi; Francesco Maria Lo Russo; Clara Mandelli; Giuseppina Schinco; Stefano Carugo; Tiziano Lucchi Journal: Brain Sci Date: 2022-06-13