Sushant Govindan1,2, Ashley Snyder3, Scott A Flanders3, Vineet Chopra4. 1. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI. 2. Patient Safety Enhancement Program, Ann Arbor VA Medical Center, Ann Arbor, MI. 3. Division of Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI. 4. Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor VA Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To quantify variation in use and complications from peripherally inserted central catheters placed in the ICU versus peripherally inserted central catheters placed on the general ward. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Fifty-two hospital Michigan quality collaborative. PATIENTS: Twenty-seven-thousand two-hundred eighty-nine patients with peripherally inserted central catheters placed during hospitalization. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient, provider, and device characteristics. Bivariate tests were used to assess differences between peripherally inserted central catheters placed in the ICU versus peripherally inserted central catheters placed on the ward. Multilevel mixed-effects generalized linear models adjusting for patient and device factors with a logit link clustered by hospital were used to examine the association between peripherally inserted central catheter complications and location of peripherally inserted central catheter placement. Variation in ICU peripherally inserted central catheter use, rates of complications, and appropriateness of use across hospitals was also examined. Eight-thousand two-hundred eighty patients (30.3%) received peripherally inserted central catheters in the ICU versus 19,009 (69.7%) on the general ward. The commonest indication for peripherally inserted central catheter use in the ICU was difficult IV access (35.1%) versus antibiotic therapy (53.3%) on wards. Compared with peripherally inserted central catheters placed in wards, peripherally inserted central catheters placed in the ICU were more often multilumen (59.5% vs 39.3; p < 0.001) and more often associated with a complication (odds ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.18-1.43; p < 0.001). Substantial variation in ICU peripherally inserted central catheter use and outcomes across hospitals was observed, with median peripherally inserted central catheter dwell time ranging from 3 to 38.5 days (p < 0.001) and complications from 0% to 40.2% (p < 0.001). Importantly, 87% (n = 45) of ICUs reported median peripherally inserted central catheter dwell times less than or equal to 14 days, a duration where traditional central venous catheters, not peripherally inserted central catheters, are considered appropriate by published criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Peripherally inserted central catheter use in the ICU is highly variable, associated with complications and often not appropriate. Further study of vascular access decision-making in the ICU appears necessary.
OBJECTIVES: To quantify variation in use and complications from peripherally inserted central catheters placed in the ICU versus peripherally inserted central catheters placed on the general ward. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Fifty-two hospital Michigan quality collaborative. PATIENTS: Twenty-seven-thousand two-hundred eighty-nine patients with peripherally inserted central catheters placed during hospitalization. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient, provider, and device characteristics. Bivariate tests were used to assess differences between peripherally inserted central catheters placed in the ICU versus peripherally inserted central catheters placed on the ward. Multilevel mixed-effects generalized linear models adjusting for patient and device factors with a logit link clustered by hospital were used to examine the association between peripherally inserted central catheter complications and location of peripherally inserted central catheter placement. Variation in ICU peripherally inserted central catheter use, rates of complications, and appropriateness of use across hospitals was also examined. Eight-thousand two-hundred eighty patients (30.3%) received peripherally inserted central catheters in the ICU versus 19,009 (69.7%) on the general ward. The commonest indication for peripherally inserted central catheter use in the ICU was difficult IV access (35.1%) versus antibiotic therapy (53.3%) on wards. Compared with peripherally inserted central catheters placed in wards, peripherally inserted central catheters placed in the ICU were more often multilumen (59.5% vs 39.3; p < 0.001) and more often associated with a complication (odds ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.18-1.43; p < 0.001). Substantial variation in ICU peripherally inserted central catheter use and outcomes across hospitals was observed, with median peripherally inserted central catheter dwell time ranging from 3 to 38.5 days (p < 0.001) and complications from 0% to 40.2% (p < 0.001). Importantly, 87% (n = 45) of ICUs reported median peripherally inserted central catheter dwell times less than or equal to 14 days, a duration where traditional central venous catheters, not peripherally inserted central catheters, are considered appropriate by published criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Peripherally inserted central catheter use in the ICU is highly variable, associated with complications and often not appropriate. Further study of vascular access decision-making in the ICU appears necessary.
Authors: Peter Pronovost; Dale Needham; Sean Berenholtz; David Sinopoli; Haitao Chu; Sara Cosgrove; Bryan Sexton; Robert Hyzy; Robert Welsh; Gary Roth; Joseph Bander; John Kepros; Christine Goeschel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-12-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Scott O Trerotola; S William Stavropoulos; Jeffrey I Mondschein; Aalpen A Patel; Neil Fishman; Barry Fuchs; Daniel M Kolansky; Scott Kasner; John Pryor; Jesse Chittams Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Peter J Pronovost; Christine A Goeschel; Elizabeth Colantuoni; Sam Watson; Lisa H Lubomski; Sean M Berenholtz; David A Thompson; David J Sinopoli; Sara Cosgrove; J Bryan Sexton; Jill A Marsteller; Robert C Hyzy; Robert Welsh; Patricia Posa; Kathy Schumacher; Dale Needham Journal: BMJ Date: 2010-02-04
Authors: Evan Alexandrou; Timothy R Spencer; Steven A Frost; Nicholas Mifflin; Patricia M Davidson; Ken M Hillman Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Laura J Brattain; Theodore T Pierce; Lars A Gjesteby; Matthew R Johnson; Nancy D DeLosa; Joshua S Werblin; Jay F Gupta; Arinc Ozturk; Xiaohong Wang; Qian Li; Brian A Telfer; Anthony E Samir Journal: Biosensors (Basel) Date: 2021-12-18