Aims: To audit the use and outcomes of using PICC lines in hemato-oncological patients. Objectives: To study the demographics of patients: ?studying the use of PICC line in hemato-oncological patients;studying the rat...Aims: To audit the use and outcomes of using PICC lines in hemato-oncological patients. Objectives: To study the demographics of patients: ?studying the use of PICC line in hemato-oncological patients;studying the rate of complications in PICC line;studying the cause of early removal of PICC line. Methods: All PICCs inserted in adult hemato-oncological patients in Hematology and Medical Oncology Department of Health Care Global (HCG) Hospital were studied prospectively, as per the proforma, till PICCs were removed or patient expired and the pattern of complications were noted. Results: Eighty-four PICCs were inserted over a period of initial nine months and followed for a total of 1 year with three months post insertion duration for a total of 10,868 catheter-days (mean of 129 days i.e. 4.3 months, range: 1 to 288 days). The most common indication for PICC was chemotherapy (100%). Among them 19 (22%) PICCs had complications and 12 were removed at the rate of 1.1/1000 PICC-days. Complications with haematologic malignancies were more as compared to those with solid tissue malignancies. Conclusions: Despite significant complication rates, PICCs are a relatively safe and cost effective mode of establishing central venous access.展开更多
Venous access devices are of pivotal importance for an increasing number of critically ill patients in a variety of disease states and in a variety of clinical settings(emergency, intensive care, surgery) and for diff...Venous access devices are of pivotal importance for an increasing number of critically ill patients in a variety of disease states and in a variety of clinical settings(emergency, intensive care, surgery) and for different purposes(fluids or drugs infusions, parenteral nutrition, antibiotic therapy, hemodynamic monitoring, procedures of dialysis/apheresis). However, healthcare professionals are commonly worried about the possible consequences that may result using a central venous access device(CVAD)(mainly, bloodstream infections and thrombosis), both peripherally inserted central catheters(PICCs) and centrally inserted central catheters(CICCs). This review aims to discuss indications, insertion techniques, and care of PICCs in critically ill patients. PICCs have many advantages over standard CICCs. First of all, their insertion is easy and safe-due to their placement into peripheral veins of the armand the advantage of a central location of catheter tip suitable for all osmolarity and p H solutions. Using the ultrasound-guidance for the PICC insertion, the risk of hemothorax and pneumothorax can be avoided, as wellas the possibility of primary malposition is very low. PICC placement is also appropriate to avoid post-procedural hemorrhage in patients with an abnormal coagulative state who need a CVAD. Some limits previously ascribed to PICCs(i.e., low flow rates, difficult central venous pressure monitoring, lack of safety for radio-diagnostic procedures, single-lumen) have delayed their start up in the intensive care units as common practice. Though, the recent development of power-injectable PICCs overcomes these technical limitations and PICCs have started to spread in critical care settings. Two important take-home messages may be drawn from this review. First, the incidence of complications varies depending on venous accesses and healthcare professionals should be aware of the different clinical performance as well as of the different risks associated with each type of CVAD(CICCs or PICCs). Second, an inappropriate CVAD choice and, particularly, an inadequate insertion technique are relevant-and often not recognized-potential risk factors for complications in critically ill patients. We strongly believe that all healthcare professionals involved in the choice, insertion or management of CVADs in critically ill patients should know all potential risk factors of complications. This knowledge may minimize complications and guarantee longevity to the CVAD optimizing the risk/benefit ratio of CVAD insertion and use. Proper management of CVADs in critical care saves lines and lives. Much evidence from the medical literature and from the clinical practice supports our belief that, compared to CICCs, the so-called power-injectable peripherally inserted central catheters are a good alternative choice in critical care.展开更多
BACKGROUND There is risk of stenosis and thrombosis of the superior vena cava after upper extremity central catheter replacement.This complication is more serious among patients with single ventricle physiology,as it ...BACKGROUND There is risk of stenosis and thrombosis of the superior vena cava after upper extremity central catheter replacement.This complication is more serious among patients with single ventricle physiology,as it might preclude them from undergoing further life-sustaining palliative surgery.AIM To describe complications associated with the use of upper extremity percutaneous intravenous central catheters(PICCs)in children with single ventricle physiology.METHODS A single institution retrospective review of univentricular patients who underwent superior cavopulmonary anastomoses as their stage 2 palliation procedure from January 2014 until December 2018 and had upper body PICCs placed at any point prior to this procedure.Clinical data including ultrasonography,cardiac catheterization,echocardiogram reports and patient notes were used to determine the presence of thrombus or stenosis of the upper extremity and cervical vessels.Data regarding the presence and duration of upper extremity PICCs and upper extremity central venous catheter(CVC),and use of anticoagulation were recorded.RESULTS Seventy-six patients underwent superior cavopulmonary anastomoses,of which 56(73%)had an upper extremity PICC at some point prior to this procedure.Median duration of PICC usage was 24 d(25%,75%:12,39).Seventeen patients(30%)with PICCs also had internal jugular or subclavian central venous catheters(CVCs)in place at some point prior to their superior cavopulmonary anastomoses,median duration 10 d(25%,75%:8,14).Thrombus was detected in association with 2 of the 56 PICCs(4%)and 3 of the 17 CVCs(18%).All five patients were placed on therapeutic dose of low molecular weight heparin at the time of thrombus detection and subsequent cardiac catheterization demonstrated resolution in three of the five patients.No patients developed clinically significant venous stenosis.CONCLUSION Use of upper extremity PICCs in patients with single ventricle physiology prior to super cavopulmonary anastomosis is associated with a low rate of catheterassociated thrombosis.展开更多
OBJECTIVE: To calculate and compare the cost of Port and PICC's application in long-term intravenous administration, and to support the decision making of hospital manager. METHODS: Literature review and patient s...OBJECTIVE: To calculate and compare the cost of Port and PICC's application in long-term intravenous administration, and to support the decision making of hospital manager. METHODS: Literature review and patient survey in 2 oncology centers in China were carried out to investigate the cost and impact of Port and PICC for patients. The cost at different time of intravenous administration was calculated and compared. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed and tornado graph was drawn. RESULTS: Direct cost of Port at 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2 years were7442, 8005, 8553, and 9131 CNY, and 4700, 9399, 14032, 18799 CNY for PICC respectively. Direct & indirect cost at 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2 years were 9291, 11704, 14101, 16529 CNY for Port and 9697, 19393, 29023, 38787 CNY for PICC. Sensitivity analysis showed that productivity loss and device maintenance cost were the most in?uential factors to the result. CONCLUSION: Port had higher cost in short term and less in long term compared with PICC. Patients expected to get intravenous administration more than 0.5 year should use Port if both direct and indirect costs were included.展开更多
目的系统评价新生儿经外周置入中心静脉导管(PICC)相关性血栓的发生率。方法计算机检索Medline、Embase、Web of Science、CINAHL、中国生物医学文献数据库、中国期刊全文数据库、维普中文科技期刊数据库和万方数据库中与新生儿PICC相...目的系统评价新生儿经外周置入中心静脉导管(PICC)相关性血栓的发生率。方法计算机检索Medline、Embase、Web of Science、CINAHL、中国生物医学文献数据库、中国期刊全文数据库、维普中文科技期刊数据库和万方数据库中与新生儿PICC相关性血栓发生率相关的研究,检索时限为建库至2022年5月17日。双人进行筛选、质量评价后,采用Stata 16.0软件进行Meta分析。结果共纳入5项研究,总样本量为4573例,其中共发生104例PICC相关性血栓。Meta分析结果显示新生儿PICC相关性血栓的发生率为1.7%(95%置信区间:0.5%~3.6%)。亚组分析结果显示,发表年份为2017—2021年的文献、经下肢静脉置管的新生儿PICC相关性血栓的发生率更高。结论新生儿PICC相关性血栓的发生率为1.68%。经下肢静脉置管时,血栓的发生率更高,因此对于凝血功能障碍、血栓发生风险高的新生儿,应尽量避免选择经下肢静脉置管。展开更多
文摘Aims: To audit the use and outcomes of using PICC lines in hemato-oncological patients. Objectives: To study the demographics of patients: ?studying the use of PICC line in hemato-oncological patients;studying the rate of complications in PICC line;studying the cause of early removal of PICC line. Methods: All PICCs inserted in adult hemato-oncological patients in Hematology and Medical Oncology Department of Health Care Global (HCG) Hospital were studied prospectively, as per the proforma, till PICCs were removed or patient expired and the pattern of complications were noted. Results: Eighty-four PICCs were inserted over a period of initial nine months and followed for a total of 1 year with three months post insertion duration for a total of 10,868 catheter-days (mean of 129 days i.e. 4.3 months, range: 1 to 288 days). The most common indication for PICC was chemotherapy (100%). Among them 19 (22%) PICCs had complications and 12 were removed at the rate of 1.1/1000 PICC-days. Complications with haematologic malignancies were more as compared to those with solid tissue malignancies. Conclusions: Despite significant complication rates, PICCs are a relatively safe and cost effective mode of establishing central venous access.
文摘Venous access devices are of pivotal importance for an increasing number of critically ill patients in a variety of disease states and in a variety of clinical settings(emergency, intensive care, surgery) and for different purposes(fluids or drugs infusions, parenteral nutrition, antibiotic therapy, hemodynamic monitoring, procedures of dialysis/apheresis). However, healthcare professionals are commonly worried about the possible consequences that may result using a central venous access device(CVAD)(mainly, bloodstream infections and thrombosis), both peripherally inserted central catheters(PICCs) and centrally inserted central catheters(CICCs). This review aims to discuss indications, insertion techniques, and care of PICCs in critically ill patients. PICCs have many advantages over standard CICCs. First of all, their insertion is easy and safe-due to their placement into peripheral veins of the armand the advantage of a central location of catheter tip suitable for all osmolarity and p H solutions. Using the ultrasound-guidance for the PICC insertion, the risk of hemothorax and pneumothorax can be avoided, as wellas the possibility of primary malposition is very low. PICC placement is also appropriate to avoid post-procedural hemorrhage in patients with an abnormal coagulative state who need a CVAD. Some limits previously ascribed to PICCs(i.e., low flow rates, difficult central venous pressure monitoring, lack of safety for radio-diagnostic procedures, single-lumen) have delayed their start up in the intensive care units as common practice. Though, the recent development of power-injectable PICCs overcomes these technical limitations and PICCs have started to spread in critical care settings. Two important take-home messages may be drawn from this review. First, the incidence of complications varies depending on venous accesses and healthcare professionals should be aware of the different clinical performance as well as of the different risks associated with each type of CVAD(CICCs or PICCs). Second, an inappropriate CVAD choice and, particularly, an inadequate insertion technique are relevant-and often not recognized-potential risk factors for complications in critically ill patients. We strongly believe that all healthcare professionals involved in the choice, insertion or management of CVADs in critically ill patients should know all potential risk factors of complications. This knowledge may minimize complications and guarantee longevity to the CVAD optimizing the risk/benefit ratio of CVAD insertion and use. Proper management of CVADs in critical care saves lines and lives. Much evidence from the medical literature and from the clinical practice supports our belief that, compared to CICCs, the so-called power-injectable peripherally inserted central catheters are a good alternative choice in critical care.
文摘BACKGROUND There is risk of stenosis and thrombosis of the superior vena cava after upper extremity central catheter replacement.This complication is more serious among patients with single ventricle physiology,as it might preclude them from undergoing further life-sustaining palliative surgery.AIM To describe complications associated with the use of upper extremity percutaneous intravenous central catheters(PICCs)in children with single ventricle physiology.METHODS A single institution retrospective review of univentricular patients who underwent superior cavopulmonary anastomoses as their stage 2 palliation procedure from January 2014 until December 2018 and had upper body PICCs placed at any point prior to this procedure.Clinical data including ultrasonography,cardiac catheterization,echocardiogram reports and patient notes were used to determine the presence of thrombus or stenosis of the upper extremity and cervical vessels.Data regarding the presence and duration of upper extremity PICCs and upper extremity central venous catheter(CVC),and use of anticoagulation were recorded.RESULTS Seventy-six patients underwent superior cavopulmonary anastomoses,of which 56(73%)had an upper extremity PICC at some point prior to this procedure.Median duration of PICC usage was 24 d(25%,75%:12,39).Seventeen patients(30%)with PICCs also had internal jugular or subclavian central venous catheters(CVCs)in place at some point prior to their superior cavopulmonary anastomoses,median duration 10 d(25%,75%:8,14).Thrombus was detected in association with 2 of the 56 PICCs(4%)and 3 of the 17 CVCs(18%).All five patients were placed on therapeutic dose of low molecular weight heparin at the time of thrombus detection and subsequent cardiac catheterization demonstrated resolution in three of the five patients.No patients developed clinically significant venous stenosis.CONCLUSION Use of upper extremity PICCs in patients with single ventricle physiology prior to super cavopulmonary anastomosis is associated with a low rate of catheterassociated thrombosis.
文摘OBJECTIVE: To calculate and compare the cost of Port and PICC's application in long-term intravenous administration, and to support the decision making of hospital manager. METHODS: Literature review and patient survey in 2 oncology centers in China were carried out to investigate the cost and impact of Port and PICC for patients. The cost at different time of intravenous administration was calculated and compared. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed and tornado graph was drawn. RESULTS: Direct cost of Port at 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2 years were7442, 8005, 8553, and 9131 CNY, and 4700, 9399, 14032, 18799 CNY for PICC respectively. Direct & indirect cost at 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2 years were 9291, 11704, 14101, 16529 CNY for Port and 9697, 19393, 29023, 38787 CNY for PICC. Sensitivity analysis showed that productivity loss and device maintenance cost were the most in?uential factors to the result. CONCLUSION: Port had higher cost in short term and less in long term compared with PICC. Patients expected to get intravenous administration more than 0.5 year should use Port if both direct and indirect costs were included.
文摘目的系统评价新生儿经外周置入中心静脉导管(PICC)相关性血栓的发生率。方法计算机检索Medline、Embase、Web of Science、CINAHL、中国生物医学文献数据库、中国期刊全文数据库、维普中文科技期刊数据库和万方数据库中与新生儿PICC相关性血栓发生率相关的研究,检索时限为建库至2022年5月17日。双人进行筛选、质量评价后,采用Stata 16.0软件进行Meta分析。结果共纳入5项研究,总样本量为4573例,其中共发生104例PICC相关性血栓。Meta分析结果显示新生儿PICC相关性血栓的发生率为1.7%(95%置信区间:0.5%~3.6%)。亚组分析结果显示,发表年份为2017—2021年的文献、经下肢静脉置管的新生儿PICC相关性血栓的发生率更高。结论新生儿PICC相关性血栓的发生率为1.68%。经下肢静脉置管时,血栓的发生率更高,因此对于凝血功能障碍、血栓发生风险高的新生儿,应尽量避免选择经下肢静脉置管。
