Abstract

It can be difficult to get the tip of a central vascular access device to the targeted area of the caval-atrial junction accurately and precisely when placing a device at the bedside. Tip placement outside this precise location can lead to complications and poor patient outcomes. Malpositions increase patients' radiation exposure, increase costs, and delay treatment. The current standard of using chest radiography to check tip placement has demonstrated discrepancies and is subject to interpretation differences between radiologists. Chest radiography and malpositions can be eliminated with the use of technology that includes Doppler, echocardiography (ECG), and an algorithm. This technology can reduce the cost of labor and supplies in addition to allowing the use of a central vascular access device immediately after placement.

Abstract

Background: Appropriate indications for radiologic evaluation of central venous ports are not fully understood. We aimed to quantitatively assess the utility of clinical history and imaging in the evaluation of malfunctioning central venous ports.

Methods: Clinical history, plain radiographs, and line injections intended to evaluate central venous port malfunction in 153 consecutive cases over a nearly 4-year period were retrospectively reviewed by 2 radiologists. Radiographs and line injections were separately categorized as normal or abnormal, and a consensus was reached on the final imaging diagnosis. The likelihood of a port-related abnormality necessitating immediate intervention was determined for all represented combinations of clinical history, radiographic findings, and line injection results.

Results: A radiologic diagnosis was made in 96.1% of cases; 19.7% of these diagnoses were classified as critical, requiring prompt intervention. Very low risk histories had a 0.0% incidence of critical port abnormalities in our cohort, regardless of imaging findings. Low risk histories had a 10.5% incidence of a critical abnormality and were best evaluated either by line injection, either directly or following an abnormal chest radiograph. Intermediate and high risk histories were associated with a 30.5% and 61.1% incidence of critical port abnormalities, respectively, and were best evaluated by line injection without preceding chest radiograph.

Conclusions: There are several scenarios in which imaging does not meaningfully affect management of malfunctioning central venous ports. Recognizing these inefficiencies may allow for more appropriate and cost-effective use of radiographs and line injections to evaluate the cause of port malfunction.

Abstract

This is a case report of an incidental diagnosis of persistent left superior vena cava (PLSVC). The diagnosis was suspected after a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) was placed and a postinsertion chest radiograph was conducted. PLSVC is a vascular anomaly that is usually diagnosed as an incidental finding. Here, we discuss the tests performed to confirm the diagnosis and the 3 variants of PLSVC. Nurses who place PICCs are likely to run across this abnormality on postinsertion chest radiograph and knowing the diagnostic test to order to confirm the diagnosis is key in expediting patient care.

Abstract

Background: Although few facilities focus on it, bloodstream infection (BSI) risk from peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVs) may exceed central line-related risk. Over a 6-year period, Methodist Hospitals substantially reduced BSIs in patients with central lines but not in patients with PIVs. A practice audit revealed deficiencies in manual disinfection of intravenous connectors, thereby increasing BSI risk. Methodist thus sought an engineered approach to hub disinfection that would compensate for variations in scrubbing technique.

Methods: Our institution involved bedside nurses in choosing new hub disinfection technology. They selected 2 devices to trial: a disinfection cap that passively disinfects hubs with isopropyl alcohol and a device that friction-scrubs with isopropyl alcohol. After trying both, nurses selected the cap for use in the facility's 3 intensive care units. After no BSIs occurred during a 3-month span, we implemented the cap throughout the hospital for use on central venous catheters; peripherally inserted central catheters; and peripheral lines, including tubing and Y-sites.

Results: Comparing the postintervention period (December 2011-August 2013) to the preintervention span (September 2009–May 2011), the BSI rate dropped 43% for PIVs, 50% for central lines, and 45% overall (PIVs + central lines). The central line and overall results are statistically significant. The PIV BSI rate drop is attributable to cap use alone because the cap was the only new intervention during the postimplementation period. The other infection reductions appear to be at least partly due to cap use.

Conclusions: Our institution achieved substantial BSI reductions, some statistically significant, by applying a disinfection cap to both PIVs and central lines.

Abstract

Background: Current peripheral intravenous catheter (PIV) first attempt success averages 47%, complications 47%, and dwell time 44 hours. Multiple intravenous (IV) access lines requiring replacement during each admission result in poor satisfaction and unnecessary costs. With 2011 Infusion Nursing Society standards allowing IV lines to dwell until complication, there is incentive to explore improvement opportunities.

Purpose: A new, proprietary coiled tip guidewire PIV was compared with conventional IV catheters in adult patients. The experimental IV catheter was projected to have a higher rate of successful placement on first attempt, fewer complications, longer dwell times, higher completion of therapy, higher user satisfaction, and lower overall costs than conventional catheters.

Methods: Adult patients requiring nonemergent IV catheters provided consent and were enrolled and randomized. The study, conducted over 4 months, included 248 patients (experimental IV group n =123, conventional IV group n =125).

Results: Experimental IV first attempt success was 89% compared with 47% for the conventional catheter. Fifty percent of conventional IV placements required a second attempt. Experimental IV complications occurred 8% of the time and complications occurred with the conventional catheter 52% of the time. Completion of therapy was 89% with the experimental IV versus 34% with the conventional IV (P < .001). Dwell time improved with the experimental IV (mean 4.4 days [105 hours] vs conventional IV at 1.5 days [35 hours]) (P < .001). Overall patient satisfaction using a 5-point Likert scale scored an average of 4.5 with the experimental IV compared with the conventional IV, which scored 3.

Conclusions: A new, proprietary coiled tip guidewire-delivered PIV demonstrated clear superiority over the conventional catheter in our study. Clinical outcome results showed statistically significant improvements in first attempt success, complications, completion of therapy, dwell time, and overall patient satisfaction.