Search

Insertion of central venous catheters in the cervico-thoracic area is potentially associated with the risk of immediate/early untoward events, some of them negligible (repeated punctures), some relevant (accidental arterial puncture), and some severe (pneumothorax). Furthermore, different strategies adopted during insertion may reduce or increase the incidence of late catheter-related complications (infection, venous thrombosis, dislodgment). This paper describes a standardized protocol (S.I.C.: Safe Insertion of Centrally Inserted Central Catheters) for the systematic application of seven basic beneficial strategies to be adopted during insertion of central venous catheters in the cervico-thoracic region, aiming to minimize immediate, early, or late insertion-related complications. These strategies include: preprocedural evaluation, appropriate aseptic technique, ultrasound guided insertion, intra-procedural assessment of the tip position, adequate protection of the exit site, proper securement of the catheter, and adequate coverage of the exit site.

In the last decade, different standardized protocols have been developed for a systematic ultrasound venous assessment before central venous catheterization: RaCeVA (Rapid Central Vein Assessment), RaPeVA (Rapid Peripheral Vein Assessment), and RaFeVA (Rapid Femoral Vein Assessment). Such protocols were designed to locate the ideal puncture site to minimize insertion-related complications. Recently, subcutaneous tunneling of non-cuffed central venous access devices at bedside has also grown in acceptance. The main rationale for tunneling is to relocate the exit site based on patient factors and concerns for dislodgement. The tool we describe (RAVESTO—Rapid Assessment of Vascular Exit Site and Tunneling Options) defines the different options of subcutaneous tunneling and their indications in different clinical situations in patients with complex vascular access.

Background: Chest-to-arm (CTA) tunneling has been described recently as a technique that allows an optimal exit site at mid-arm even in chronically ill patients with complex clinical issues and challenging problems of vascular access. Method: We adopted CTA tunneling in oncologic and in non-oncologic patients, in totally implanted and in external devices, for both medium and long-term intravenous treatments. We report our experience with 60 cases of CTA tunneling: 19 patients requiring a totally implantable device, who had bilateral contraindication to venous access at the arm and bilateral contraindication to placement of the pocket in the infra-clavicular area; 41 patients requiring an external central venous catheter, who had bilateral contraindication to insertion of peripherally inserted central catheters or femoral catheters, as well as contraindication to an exit site in the infraclavicular area. All venous access devices were inserted with ultrasound guidance and tip location by intracavitary electrocardiography, under local anesthesia. Results: There were no immediate or early complications. Patients with CTA-ports had no late complications. In patients with CTA-tunneled external catheters, there were two dislodgments, four episodes of central line associated blood stream infections, and one local infection. There were no episodes of venous thrombosis or catheter malfunction. Conclusion: Our experience suggests that CTA tunneling is a safe maneuver, with very low risk of complications, and should be considered as an option in patients with complex venous access.

Background: Taurolidine lock is known to be effective in preventing catheter-related infections in a variety of venous access devices, including long term venous access devices for chemotherapy. Though, literature about the use of taurolidine for treating catheter colonization or catheter-related blood stream infection is scarce. Method: We have retrospectively reviewed the safety and efficacy of 2% taurolidine lock for treatment of catheter-colonization and of catheter-related bloodstream infection in cancer patients with totally implanted venous access devices. Diagnosis of colonization or catheter-related infection was based on paired peripheral and central blood cultures, according to the method of Delayed Time to Positivity. Results: We recorded 24 cases of catheter-related infection and two cases of colonization. Taurolidine lock—associated with systemic antibiotic therapy—was successful in treating all cases of catheter-related infection, with disappearance of clinical symptoms, normalization of laboratory values, and eventually negative blood cultures. Taurolidine lock was also safe and effective in treating device colonization. No adverse effect was reported. Conclusion: In our retrospective analysis, 2% taurolidine lock was completely safe and highly effective in the treatment of both catheter-colonization and catheter-related bloodstream infection in cancer patients with totally implanted venous access devices.

Background: An adequate stabilization of a vascular device is an important part of insertion bundles and is an effective strategy in reducing complications. Dislodgment has a relevant clinical impact and an increase in healthcare costs. Method: We have retrospectively investigated the safety and efficacy of Subcutaneously Anchored Securement (SAS) for Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters (PICC) in cancer patients. Results: We analyzed 639 patients who had a PICC inserted and secured with SAS, over the past 3 years (2018–2020). No immediate complications during SAS placement were reported. In the first 24–48 h, a slight local ecchymosis was reported in 24 cases with rapid spontaneous resolution. No cases of bleeding or hematoma of the exit site were reported. The total number of catheter days was 93078. Dislodgment occurred only in seven cases (1.1%). In 16 patients, the PICC was removed because of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI): the overall incidence of CRBSI was 0.17 per 1000 catheter days. Symptomatic venous thrombosis was documented in 12 patients (1.9%) and treated with low molecular weight heparin without PICC removal. We had no cases of irreversible lumen occlusion. In 17 patients, local discomfort—including device-related pressure ulcers and painful inflammation—was reported: these cases were treated without SAS removal or PICC removal. Conclusion: In this retrospective analysis, subcutaneously anchored securement of PICCs was a safe and effective strategy for reducing the risk of dislodgment.

Persistent withdrawal occlusion is a specific catheter malfunction characterized by inability to withdraw blood through the device while infusion is maintained. The main causes are fibroblastic sleeve and tip malposition (associated or not to venous thrombosis around the tip). All current guidelines recommend infusing vesicant/antiblastic drugs through a central venous port only after assessment of blood return. In PWO, blood return is impossible. We have recently started to assess the intravascular position of the tip and the delivery of the infusion in the proximity of the cavo-atrial junction utilizing transthoracic/subxiphoid ultrasound with the ‘bubble test’. We found that this is an easy, real-time, accurate and safe method for verifying the possibility of using a port for chemotherapy even in the absence of blood return, as it occurs with persistent withdrawal occlusion.

Background Accidental dislodgement of central venous catheters is a frequent complication in NICU and it often requires catheter replacement. Subcutaneously anchored sutureless devices (SAS) have been recently introduced in clinical practice for securement of different types of central catheters, but they have never been used in neonates. We evaluated safety and efficacy of SAS in neonates. Methods All neonates who required central venous catheters inserted via ultrasound-guided cannulation during 12 months of clinical practice in our NICU. We adopted SAS for securement of all central venous catheters inserted in neonates via ultrasound guided cannulation either of the brachio-cephalic vein (centrally inserted central catheters: CICC) or the femoral vein (femorally inserted central catheters: FICC). Results: seventy-two central catheters were inserted in 70 preterm and term neonates (3-4 Fr power injectable polyurethane catheters; 62 CICC + 10 FICC) and they were all secured with SAS. Mean postmenstrual age at the time of insertion was 31 weeks and mean weight was 1400 g. SAS was easy to place in all cases. The median duration of the line was 6 weeks. No accidental dislodgement of CICC or FICC was recorded. All SAS but one were left in place until elective removal of the catheter. In all patients, SAS removal was easy and uneventful, and it did not require any sedation or local anesthesia. Conclusions: SAS was effective in preventing accidental catheter dislodgement in 100% of cases. Complications during insertion, maintenance and removal were negligible.

Background: In some clinical conditions, central venous access is preferably or necessarily achieved by threading the catheter into the inferior vena cava. This can be obtained not only by puncture of the common femoral vein at the groin, but also—as suggested by few recent studies—by puncture of the superficial femoral vein at mid-thigh. Methods: We have retrospectively reviewed our experience with central catheters inserted by ultrasound-guided puncture and cannulation of the superficial femoral vein, focusing mainly on indications, technique of venipuncture, and incidence of immediate/early complications. Results: From June 2020 to December 2020, we have inserted 98 non-tunneled central venous catheters (tip in inferior vena cava or right atrium) by ultrasound-guided puncture of the superficial femoral vein at mid-thigh or in the lower third of the thigh, all of them secured by subcutaneous anchorage. The success of the maneuver was 100% and immediate/early complications were negligible. Follow-up of hospitalized patients (72.5% of all cases) showed only one episode of catheter dislodgment, no episode of infection and no episode of catheter related thrombosis. Conclusions: The ultrasound approach to the superficial femoral vein is an absolutely safe technique of central venous access. In our experience, it was not associated with any risk of severe insertion-related complications, even in patients with low platelet count or coagulation disorders. Also, the exit site of the catheter at mid-thigh may have advantages if compare to the exit site in the inguinal area.

In this paper we describe a new protocol—named RaFeVA (Rapid Femoral Vein Assessment)—for the systematic US assessment of the veins in the inguinal area and at mid-thigh, designed to evaluate patency and caliber of the common and superficial femoral veins and choose the best venipuncture site before insertion of a FICC.

Uncooperative elderly patients with cognitive disorder are often confused and/or agitated. Risk of involuntary venous access device dislodgment is high in these patients. This is equally likely with peripherally inserted central catheters and centrally inserted central catheters but less common with femorally inserted central catheters. Solutions to this problem include strict continuous patient observation, using sutures or subcutaneous anchored securement, wrapping the arm to “hide” the line, or using soft mittens to occupy the hands. However, some patients are able to disrupt the dressing, dislodge the catheter, and often pull the catheter out completely. In some cases, the patient may also overcome the resistance offered by the stitches or by the subcutaneous anchored securement device. In a recent paper on the impact of subcutaneously anchored securement in preventing dislodgment, the only demonstrated failures occurred in non-compliant elderly patients. Creation of an alternative exit site is an emerging trend in patients with cognitive impairment at high risk for catheter dislodgement. Subcutaneous tunneling from traditional insertion sites such as the jugular, axillary, or femoral veins allows placement of the exit site in a region inaccessible to the patient. The following two case reports demonstrate the technique for tunneling a femorally inserted central catheter downward to the patellar region and for tunneling a centrally inserted central catheter to the scapular region. Internal review board approval was not deemed necessary as subcutaneous tunneling is not a new technique. In our experience, such maneuvers can be successfully performed at the bedside.

BACKGROUND Whether peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are appropriate as safe and durable venous access devices (VADs) is still controversial. The aim of this 7-year, prospective cohort study was to compare the incidence rate differences of catheter-related complications (CRCs) among 4 types of central VADs in cancer patients receiving home parenteral nutrition (HPN). METHODS We enrolled all adult cancer outpatients who were candidates for HPN and who had a central VAD inserted during the study period, focusing on the incidence rate of CRCs. RESULTS We evaluated 854 central VADs (401 PICCs, 137 nontunneled centrally inserted central catheters [CICCs], 118 tunneled-cuffed CICCs, and 198 ports) in 761 patients, for a total of 169,116 catheter-days. Overall, the rate of total CRCs was 1.08/1000 catheter-days. The incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections was low (0.29/1000), particularly for PICCs (0.08/1000; P < .001 vs tunneled-cuffed CICCs) and for ports (0.21/1000; P < .019 vs tunneled-cuffed CICCs). The rates of mechanical complications (0.58/1000) and of catheter-related symptomatic thrombosis (0.09/1000) were low and similar for PICCs, tunneled-cuffed CICCs, and ports. In terms of duration and removal rate due to complications, PICCs were like tunneled-cuffed CICCs and ports. Altogether, PICCs had fewer total complications than tunneled-cuffed CICCs (P < .001), there was no difference in total complications between PICCs and ports. CONCLUSION PICCs had significantly better outcomes than tunneled-cuffed CICCs and were safe and durable as ports. Our extensive, long-term study suggests that PICCs can be successfully used as safe and long-lasting VADs for HPN in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND The venous access for the insertion of permanent leads of cardiac implantable electronic devices is often achieved by venous cutdown of the cephalic vein, or by "blind" puncture of the subclavian vein using anatomical landmarks, or by fluoroscopy-assisted methods. METHODS We have retrospectively analyzed our clinical experience to verify the feasibility, the safety, and efficacy of the adoption of ultrasound-guided puncture/cannulation of the axillary vein for this purpose. RESULTS Nine hundred eighty-seven leads were placed during 548 consecutive procedures, accessing the axillary vein in the infraclavicular area using real-time ultrasound guidance. Venipuncture was successful in 99.8% of cases. The access time was 11 seconds (range 4-580). We recorded three cases of pneumothorax (0.5%), but no hemothorax and no hemo-mediastinum. The incidence of local hematoma was 2.1% (12 cases). No injury to the brachial plexus or to the phrenic nerve was recorded. In a follow-up of 33 months (range 16-39), we observed no cases of "subclavian crush syndrome" (damage of the leads at the level of the thoracic inlet), and the rate of pocket infection/infective endocarditis was 0.7%. CONCLUSION In our experience, ultrasound-guided puncture/cannulation of the axillary vein for implantation of permanent leads is feasible, effective, and safe. It might be considered as a first option for this procedure.

Ultrasound for diagnostic and procedural purposes is becoming a standard in daily clinical practice including anaesthesiology and peri-operative medicine. The project of European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) Task Force for the development of clinical guidelines on the PERioperative uSE of Ultra-Sound (PERSEUS) project has focused on the use of ultrasound in two areas that account for the majority of procedures performed routinely in the operating room: vascular access and regional anaesthesia. Given the extensive literature available in these two areas, this paper will focus on the use of ultrasound-guidance for vascular access. A second part will be dedicated to peripheral nerve/neuraxial blocks. The Taskforce identified three main domains of application in ultrasound-guided vascular cannulation: adults, children and training. The literature search were performed by a professional librarian from the Cochrane Anaesthesia and Critical and Emergency Care Group in collaboration with the ESA Taskforce. The Grading of Recommendation Assessment (GRADE) system for assessing levels of evidence and grade of recommendations were used. For the use of ultrasound-guided cannulation of the internal jugular vein, femoral vein and arterial access, the level evidence was classified 1B. For other accesses, the evidence remains limited. For training in ultrasound guidance, there were no studies. The importance of proper training for achieving competency and full proficiency before performing any ultrasound-guided vascular procedure must be emphasised.

OBJECTIVES Peripherally inserted central catheters are increasingly used in ICU as an alternative to centrally inserted central catheters for IV infusion. However, their reliability for hemodynamic measurements with transpulmonary thermodilution is currently unknown. We investigated the agreement between transpulmonary thermodilution measurements obtained with bolus injection through peripherally inserted central catheter and centrally inserted central catheter (reference standard) using a transpulmonary thermodilution-calibrated Pulse Contour hemodynamic monitoring system (VolumeView/EV1000). DESIGN Prospective method-comparison study. SETTING Twenty-bed medical-surgical ICU of a teaching hospital. PATIENTS Twenty adult ICU patients who required hemodynamic monitoring because of hemodynamic instability and had both peripherally inserted central catheter and centrally inserted central catheter in place. INTERVENTION The hemodynamic measurements obtained by transpulmonary thermodilution after injection of a cold saline bolus via both centrally inserted central catheter and either a single-lumen 4F or a double-lumen 5F peripherally inserted central catheter using were compared. In order to rule out bias related to manual injection, measurements were repeated using an automated rapid injection system. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS A total of 320 measurements were made. Cardiac index was significantly higher when measured with double-lumen 5F peripherally inserted central catheter than with centrally inserted central catheter (mean, 4.5 vs 3.3 L/min/m; p < 0.0001; bias, 1.24 L/min/m [0.27, 2.22 L/min/m]; bias percentage, 31%). Global end-diastolic index, extravascular lung water index, and stroke volume index were also overestimated (853 ± 240 vs 688 ± 175 mL/m, 12.2 ± 4.2 vs 9.4 ± 2.9 mL/kg, and 49.6 ± 14.9 vs 39.5 ± 9.6 mL/m, respectively; p < 0.0001). Lower, albeit significant differences were found using single-lumen 4F peripherally inserted central catheter (mean cardiac index, 4.2 vs 3.7 L/min/m; p = 0.043; bias, 0.51 L/min/m [-0.53, 1.55 L/min/m]; bias percentage, 12.7%). All differences were confirmed, even after standardization of bolus speed with automated injection. CONCLUSIONS Bolus injection through peripherally inserted central catheter for transpulmonary thermodilution using EV1000 led to a significant overestimation of cardiac index, global end-diastolic index, extravascular lung water index, and stroke volume index, especially when double-lumen 5F peripherally inserted central catheter was used (ClinicalTrial.gov NCT03834675).

Central venous access devices are routinely used in clinical practice for administration of fluids and medications, for drawing blood samples and for hemodynamic monitoring. The adoption of ultrasound guided venipuncture has significantly reduced procedure-related complications, as documented by the recommendations of most recent guidelines. Ultrasound has also an important role also in other aspects of central venous catheterization, such as in the pre-procedural evaluation of the venous patrimony and in the detection of early and late non-infective complications. Recently, bedside ultrasound has been regarded as a promising tool also for ensuring an accurate and intraprocedural method of tip navigation and tip location. The aim of this paper is to review all the evidence about the accuracy of ultrasound methods for tip navigation and tip location in adult patients, and to suggest a structured standardized protocol for clinical practice.

Physical exercise is often encouraged in cancer patients, mainly for the purpose of rehabilitation and for its psychological benefit. Some authors also suggest that exercise—specially in patient with peripherally inserted central venous access devices—may contribute to reduce the risk of catheter-related thrombosis. Still, the impact of physical exercise on the risk of device-related complications is not yet defined. We report a case of secondary migration of the tip of an arm port, caused by high-intensity exercise in a woman undergoing chemotherapy because of ovarian cancer. Tip migration was suspected because of malfunction (persistent withdrawal occlusion) and diagnosis established after ultrasound examination and chest x-ray. Even if exercise may yield benefit in the cancer patient on chemotherapy, the risk of mechanical complication of the venous access device—such as tip migration—should be considered in the case of high-intensity exercise.

Short peripheral intravenous cannulas have different features, as they may be winged or non-winged, ported or non-ported, equipped or not with needle stick prevention and “blood stop” mechanisms, and integrated or not with preassembled extensions or preassembled needle free connector. In the current range of commercially available short peripheral cannulas, there is one device that is apparently associated with several clinical advantages. In fact, short peripheral cannulas with safety mechanisms, closed system, winged, non-ported, and equipped with preassembled extension and preassembled needle-free connector appear to be associated with prolonged dwell time, reduction of the incidence of several complications (infiltration/extravasation, dislodgement, phlebitis, infection, blood leakage), cost reduction, and increased satisfaction of patients and clinicians. To clarify the current terminology and to identify this device for future clinical studies, the authors advocate the use of the term “integrated short peripheral cannula.” A rapid review of the current evidence suggests that this new device may have different clinical performance and different indications if compared to standard short peripheral cannulas. Though, the optimal clinical outcome can be achieved only when the device is inserted and maintained with proper protocols.

Since several innovations have recently changed the criteria of choice and management of peripheral venous access (new devices, new techniques of insertion, new recommendations for maintenance), the WoCoVA Foundation (WoCoVA = World Conference on Vascular Access) has developed an international Consensus with the following objectives: to propose a clear and useful classification of the currently available peripheral venous access devices; to clarify the proper indication of central versus peripheral venous access; discuss the indications of the different peripheral venous access devices (short peripheral cannulas vs long peripheral cannulas vs midline catheters); to define the proper techniques of insertion and maintenance that should be recommended today. To achieve these purposes, WoCoVA have decided to adopt a European point of view, considering some relevant differences of terminology between North America and Europe in this area of venous access and the need for a common basis of understanding among the experts recruited for this project. The ERPIUP Consensus (ERPIUP = European Recommendations for Proper Indication and Use of Peripheral venous access) was designed to offer systematic recommendations for clinical practice, covering every aspect of management of peripheral venous access devices in the adult patient: indication, insertion, maintenance, prevention and treatment of complications, removal. Also, our purpose was to improve the standardization of the terminology, bringing clarity of definition, and classification.

We report a case of primary malposition of a PICC inserted by guidewire replacement in the emergency room. Intraprocedural tip location by intracavitary electrocardiography was not feasible because the patient had atrial fibrillation; intraprocedural tip location by ultrasound (using the so-called “bubble test”) showed that the tip was not in the superior vena cava or in the right atrium. A post-procedural chest X-ray confirmed the malposition but could not precise the location of the tip. A CT scan (scheduled for other purposes) finally visualized the tip in a very unusual location, the left pericardiophrenic vein.

This article reports the results of three prospective clinical studies conducted in a university hospital regarding the efficacy, safety and cost effectiveness of a subcutaneously anchored sutureless system for securing central venous catheters. The results were favourable to the adoption of such a device, and the analysis of the data allowed the authors to define those categories of patients where the device should have the most benefit: neonates, children, non-compliant older patients with cognitive difficulties, patients with skin abnormalities that may reduce the effectiveness of a skin-adhesive sutureless securement system, patients who are candidates for having a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) in place for more than 8 weeks, and any other category of patients with a recognised high risk of catheter dislodgement.

Introduction:Intracavitary electrocardiogram technique is recognized as a safe, accurate, and inexpensive method for verifying the tip location of central venous access devices. While the technique...

Ultrasound technology has revolutionized the practice of safer vascular access, for both venous and arterial cannulation. The ability to visualize underlying structures of the chest, neck, and upper/lower extremities provides for greater success, speed, and safety with all vascular access procedures. Ultrasound not only yields superior procedural advantages but also provides a platform to perform a thorough assessment of the vascular structures to evaluate vessel health, viability, size, and patency, including the location of other important and best avoided anatomical structures—prior to performing any procedures. Such assessment is best performed using a systematic and standardized approach, as the Rapid Central Vein Assessment, described in this study.

The need for filtering intravenous infusions has long been recognized in the field of venous access, though hard scientific evidence about the actual indications for in-line filters has been scarce. In the last few years, several papers and a few clinical studies have raised again this issue, suggesting that the time has come for a proper definition of the type of filtration, of its potential benefit, and of its proper indications in clinical practice. The WoCoVA Foundation, whose goal is to increase the global awareness on the risk of intravenous access and on patients’ safety, developed the project of a consensus on intravenous filtration. A panel of experts in different aspects of intravenous infusion was chosen to express the current state of knowledge about filtration and to indicate the direction of future research in this field. The present document reports the final conclusions of the panel.

Background Single-lumen 4Fr or double-lumen 5Fr power injectable peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are not accurate for trans-pulmonary thermodilution (TPTD), since they overestimate cardiac index and other TPTD-derived parameters when compared with centrally inserted central catheters (CICCs) because of the smaller size of their lumen. We hypothesize that PICCs with larger lumen size may be reliable for the cardiac index assessment using the TPTD. Methods This is a single-centre, prospective method–comparison study that included adult patients admitted in ICU who required a calibrated Pulse Contour hemodynamic monitoring system (VolumeView/EV1000™) for circulatory shock and had both PICC and CICC in place. We compared TPTD measurements via single-lumen 5Fr or triple-lumen 6Fr polyurethane power injectable PICCs with triple-lumen 7Fr CICC (reference standard). To rule out biases related to manual injection, measurements were repeated using an automated rapid injection system. We performed Bland–Altman analysis accounting for multiple observations per patient. Results A total of 320 measurements were performed in 15 patients. During the manual phase, the cardiac index measured with either single-lumen 5Fr or triple-lumen 6Fr PICCs were comparable with cardiac index measured with triple-lumen 7Fr CICC (3.2 ± 1.04 vs. 3.2 ± 1.06 L/min/m2, bias 2.2% and 3.3 ± 0.8 vs. 3.0 ± 0.7 L/min/m2, bias 8.5%, respectively). During the automated phase, triple-lumen 6Fr PICC slightly overestimated the cardiac index when compared to triple-lumen 7Fr CICC (CI 3.4 ± 0.7 vs. 3.0 ± 0.7 L/min/m2, bias 12.5%; p = 0.012). For both single-lumen 5Fr and triple-lumen 6Fr PICCs, percentage error vs. triple-lumen 7Fr CICC was below 20% (14.7% and 19% during the manual phase and 14.4% and 13.8% during the automated phase, respectively). Similar results were observed for TPTD-derived parameters. Conclusions During hemodynamic monitoring with TPTD, both single-lumen 5Fr PICCs and triple-lumen 6Fr PICCs can be used for cold fluid bolus injection as an alternative to CICC (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04241926).

Nowadays, ultrasound-guidance is commonly used in regional anaesthesia (USGRA) and to locate the spinal anatomy in neuraxial analgesia. The aim of this second guideline on the PERi-operative uSE of UltraSound (PERSEUS-RA) is to provide evidence as to which areas of regional anaesthesia the use of ultrasound guidance should be considered a gold standard or beneficial to the patient. The PERSEUS Taskforce members were asked to define relevant outcomes and rank the relative importance of outcomes following the GRADE process. Whenever the literature was not able to provide enough evidence, we decided to use the RAND method with a modified Delphi process. Whenever compared with alternative techniques, the use of USGRA is considered well tolerated and effective for some nerve blocks but there are certain areas, such as truncal blocks, where a lack of robust data precludes useful comparison. The new frontiers for further research are represented by the application of USG during epidural analgesia or spinal anaesthesia as, in these cases, the evidence for the value of the use of ultrasound is limited to the preprocedure identification of the anatomy, providing the operator with a better idea of the depth and angle of the epidural or spinal space. USGRA can be considered an essential part of the curriculum of the anaesthesiologist with a defined training and certification path. Our recommendations will require considerable changes to some training programmes, and it will be necessary for these to be phased in before compliance becomes mandatory.

Background: Peripheral intravenous access is no longer limited to the standard intravenous catheter (cannula). Devices varying in length, material and insertion technique, are increasingly accessible. There is substantial variability surrounding the nomenclature and use of these devices in the literature. We wished to understand the attitude of vascular access specialists towards the nomenclature and use of peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs), long peripheral catheters (LPCs) and midline catheters (MCs). Methods: A 15-question electronic survey was sent to members of the Association of Vascular Access (AVA) regarding the nomenclature and use of PIVCs, LPCs and MCs. Results: A total of 228 participants completed the survey. Approximately two-thirds of respondents use LPCs (65.8%) and MCs (71.9%) in their clinical practice. The most common indication for LPCs was difficult venous access (56.5%), while the most common indication for MCs was medium-term (1–4 weeks) intravenous therapy (62.7%). The majority of participants (57.9%) agreed with the following classification of peripheral intravenous devices: PIVCs: 2 to 6 cm in length, terminating distal to the axilla; LPCs: 6 to 15 cm in length, terminating distal to the axilla; MCs: 15–25 cm in length, terminating in the axilla. Participants suggested that the length of the catheter should be considered a general recommendation, as LPCs and MCs should be primarily differentiated by tip location. Conclusions: The majority of vascular access specialists from AVA have incorporated LPCs and MCs into their repertoire of peripheral venous access tools. We envisage that their use will increase as the clinical community becomes more familiar with these devices.

The presence of a vascular access device (or of any intravascular foreign body) inside the bloodstream is often associated with the formation of a connective tissue sleeve around the catheter (often named—erroneously—“fibrin sleeve”). Such sleeve is usually a physiological phenomenon with little or no clinical relevance, but its pathogenesis is still unclear, so that it is frequently confused with venous thrombosis; also, its relationship with other major catheter-related complications, such as venous thrombosis and bloodstream infection, is uncertain. This narrative review tries to convey in a systematic form the current knowledge about pathogenesis, incidence, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and management of this phenomenon.

Background: Insertion of peripherally inserted central catheters in oncological patients is potentially associated with catheter-related thrombosis and fibroblastic sleeve; the actual incidence and interactions between these two non-infective complications have never been investigated in a prospective clinical study on peripherally inserted central catheters. Methods: In a cohort of oncological/hematological patients with peripherally inserted central catheter, we evaluated the occurrence of catheter-related thrombosis and/or fibroblastic sleeve, examining all patients by ultrasound scan at days 7, 14, 21, and 28 after insertion. We correlated our findings with the type of disease. Results: We enrolled 254 patients with power injectable polyurethane 4Fr peripherally inserted central catheters. Ultrasound scan of the veins of the arm showed fibroblastic sleeve in 76 patients (29.9%); the fibroblastic sleeve was first detected on day 7 in 45 cases (17.7%), on day 14 in 26 cases (10.2%), on day 21 in 3 cases (1.2%), and on day 28 in 2 cases (0.79%). There was no correlation between the type of disease and the development of fibroblastic sleeve. The incidence of asymptomatic catheter-related thrombosis was 5.12%: all catheter-related thromboses were detected before day 14. There was only one case of symptomatic catheter-related thrombosis (0.39%) in a leukemia patient. Fibroblastic sleeve and catheter-related thrombosis were associated only in two cases (0.78%). Conclusion: Fibroblastic sleeve is a frequent (29.9%) but asymptomatic finding in oncological and hematological patients with peripherally inserted central catheter, and—in the vast majority of cases—it occurs within 2 weeks after insertion. If compared to fibroblastic sleeve, asymptomatic catheter-related thrombosis is less frequent (5.51%); symptomatic catheter-related thrombosis is rare (

Catheter-related thrombosis represents one of the most common complications following central venous access insertion. Despite the amount of available studies, many aspects surrounding catheter-related thrombosis remain controversial. Thirteen years ago, the Italian Study Group for Long Term Central Venous Access (GAVeCeLT) developed a nationwide Consensus in order to clarify some key aspects on this topic. Despite most of them still remain valid, however, knowledge around catheter-related thrombosis has greatly evolved over the last decade, with a natural evolution in terms of catheter technologies, insertion techniques, and management bundles. Aims of this editorial are to readdress conclusions of the 2007 GAVeCeLT Consensus in the light of the new relevant evidences that have been added in the last 13 years and to analyze some unsolved issues that still remain debated.

Background: Subcutaneously anchored securement devices (or subcutaneous engineered securement devices) have been introduced recently into the clinical practice, but the number of published studies is still scarce. The Italian Group of Long-Term Central Venous Access Devices (GAVeCeLT)—in collaboration with WoCoVA (World Congress on Vascular Access)—has developed a Consensus about the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of such devices. Methods: After the definition of a panel of experts, a systematic collection and review of the literature on subcutaneously anchored securement devices was performed. The panel has been divided in two working groups, one focusing on adult patients and the other on children and neonates. Results: Although the quality of evidence is generally poor, since it is based mainly on non-controlled prospective studies, the panel has concluded that subcutaneously anchored securement devices are overall effective in reducing the risk of dislodgment and they appear to be safe in all categories of patients, being associated only with rare and negligible local adverse effects; cost-effectiveness is demonstrated—or highly likely—in specific populations of patients with long-term venous access and/or at high risk of dislodgment. Conclusion: Subcutaneously anchored securement is a very promising strategy for avoiding dislodgment. Further studies are warranted, in particular for the purpose of defining (a) the best management of the anchoring device so to avoid local problems, (b) the patient populations in which it may be considered highly cost-effective and even mandatory, (c) the possible benefit in terms of reduction of other catheter-related complications such as venous thrombosis and/or infection, and—last but not least—(d) their impact on the workload and stress level of nurses taking care of the devices.

Reliable venous access should be part of the clinical-therapeutic path of all cancer patients. A correct preliminary ultrasound evaluation of the patient’s veins and the choice of the suitable vein are the fundamental requirements to guarantee a stable and long-lasting venous access.

Central venous access devices have revolutioned the care of children affected by malignancies, facilitating management of complex and prolonged infusive therapies, reducing pain and discomfort related to repeated blood samples and indiscriminate venipunctures, thus reducing also psychological stress of both patients and families. In this respect, peripherally inserted central catheters have been disseminated for use, even in pediatric oncology patients, for their many advantages: easy and non-invasive placement with no risk of insertion-related complications, as well as easy removal; reduced need for general anesthesia both for insertion and removal; adequate prolonged performance also for challenging therapies (e.g. stem cell transplantation); and low rate of late complications. Nonetheless, concerns have been recently raised about use of such devices in children with cancer, especially regarding a presumed (but not demonstrated) high risk of catheter-related venous thrombosis. Are we facing a new witch (or peripherally inserted central catheter) hunt? The choice of the central venous access device—particularly in oncologic children—should be based on an evaluation of clinical advantages and risks, as provided by appropriate and scientifically accurate clinical studies.

The 2020 COVID pandemic has forced everyone to update the usual medical procedures and adapt them to a new situation characterized by a high risk of contamination of the health operator. The placement of a venous access device is no exception. In the experience of the vascular access team of our hospital, hit by the COVID epidemic in March 2020, the safety of both the patient and the staff can be ensured by an insertion bundle of few smart strategies, which include choice of long dwelling peripheral catheters (midline catheters) rather than short venous cannulas; use of power injectable peripherally inserted central catheters in the COVID patients in intensive care unit requiring a central line; use of wireless probes—easy to carry, easy to clean—for ultrasound guided venipuncture; avoidance of x-rays, using alternative methods for tip location such as intracavitary electrocardiography or trans-thoracic echocardiography; strict adoption of the barrier precautions recommended by the international guidelines.

Intracavitary electrocardiography is an accurate and non-invasive method for central venous access tip location. Using the catheter as a traveling intracavitary electrode, intracavitary electrocardiography is based on the increase in the detected amplitude of the P wave while approaching the cavoatrial junction. Despite having been adopted diffusely in clinical practice only in the last years, this method is not novel. In fact, it has first been described in the late 40s, during electrophysiological studies. After a long period of quiescence, it is in the last two decades of the XX century that intracavitary electrocardiography became popular as an effective mean of central venous catheters tip location. But the golden age of this technique began with the new millennium, as documented by high-quality studies in this period. In fact, in those years, intracavitary electrocardiography has been studied broadly, and important achievements in terms of comprehension of the technique, accuracy, and feasibility of the method in different populations and conditions (i.e. pediatrics, renal patients, atrial fibrillation) have been gained. In this review, we describe the technique, its history, and its current perspectives.

Background: Placement of central venous access devices is a clinical procedure associated with some risk of adverse events and with a relevant cost. Careful choice of the device, appropriate insertion technique, and proper management of the device are well-known strategies commonly adopted to achieve an optimal clinical result. However, the environment where the procedure takes place may have an impact on the overall outcome in terms of safety and cost-effectiveness. Methods: We carried out a retrospective analysis on pediatric patients scheduled for a major neurosurgical operation, who required a central venous access device in the perioperative period. We divided the patients in two groups: in group A the central venous access device was inserted in the operating room, while in group B the central venous access device was inserted in the sedation room of our Pediatric Intensive Care Unit. We compared the two groups in terms of safety and cost-effectiveness. Results: We analyzed 47 central venous access devices in 42 children. There were no insertion-related complications. Only one catheter-related bloodstream infection was recorded, in group A. However, the costs related to central venous access device insertion were quite different: €330–€540 in group A versus €105–€135 in group B. Conclusion: In the pediatric patient candidate to a major neurosurgical operation, preoperative insertion of the central venous access device in the sedation room rather than in the operating room is less expensive and equally safe.

Introduction: Midline catheters are widely used in clinical practice. Proper placement of midline catheter tip is usually assessed only by aspirating blood and flushing with normal saline without resistance. Purpose: To describe the ultrasound-guided tip location for midline catheters and its feasibility and to compare incidence of catheter-related venous thrombosis associated with or without ultrasound tip localization. Methods: The ultrasound-guided tip location is described step by step. Feasibility of the technique and incidence of catheter-related venous thrombosis were measured (study group) and compared with two historical groups: study group, 20-cm midline catheters inserted with ultrasound-guided tip location; group 1, 25-cm midline catheters inserted without ultrasound-guided tip location and group 2, 20-cm midline catheters inserted without ultrasound-guided tip location. Results: In the study group, ultrasound-guided tip location was easily feasible in 98.9% of patients. Incidence of catheter-related venous thrombosis was 2.42% in control group 1, 9% in control group 2 and 2.62% in the study group. Discussion: In the study group and control group 1, the tip was placed in the axillary vein, about 3 cm distal to the clavicle and in the subclavian vein. In control group 2, the tip was probably located at the transition between the axillary and the subclavian vein. It is possible that such position may have been associated with an increased incidence of catheter-related venous thrombosis. Conclusion: The ideal position of the tip of a midline catheter might be inside the axillary vein, about 3 cm distal to the axillary-subclavian transition or inside the subclavian vein. Ultrasound-guided tip location is safe, inexpensive, easy and potentially useful during midline catheters insertion.

Epicutaneo-caval catheters have been widely used in neonatal intensive care units since Shaw has described them in 1973. These central venous access devices are usually placed at bedside and they have the purpose of delivering parenteral nutrition and/or drugs that are not compatible with the peripheral route. Even though in the last decade there was a fast advancement in the world of vascular access devices, such changes have only marginally affected the field of neonatal venous access. The aim of this editorial is to give 10 recommendations that correspond to 10 novelties in the field of epicutaneo-caval catheter: some are already evidence-based and should be introduced in our daily practice now, while others are particularly interesting and deserve further clinical studies.

Background: “Difficult intravenous access” patients represent a challenge within an emergency department as they often require many attempts to insert a peripheral short cannula in the emergency room or during the whole hospitalization. This can lead to many problems in terms of patient discomfort, increase of cost, and prolonged treatment time. Objectives: This study aimed to reduce the number of attempts needed for a short-cannula insertion or preventing insertion of a central vascular access by placing an ultrasound-guided long cannula during the emergency department visit. Material and methods: The insertion of mini-midline was monitored within an emergency room in 50 patients considered difficult intravenous access patients, who failed two attempts at peripheral venous access insertion and/or required the use of an alternative vascular device. Results: A total of 46 patients out of 50 were monitored. In 38 (82%) patients, the device was removed due to the end of the indication, and in six of them, it was replaced by a central venous catheter. Two devices were left inside even after discharge and were then removed at the end of indication. In eight (17%) patients, the device was removed due to accidental removal (4) and malfunction (4). In all the cases, the average duration of the insertion procedure was 10 min. The mean dwell time accounted to 7 and 9 days. Conclusion: The insertion of a mini-midline as part of the first emergency room visit in selected patients is a rapid, safe, and cost-effective procedure, which can provide the patient with stable venous access during the all hospitalization time.

Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of a new three-component ‘bundle’ for insertion and management of centrally inserted central catheters (CICCs), designed to minimize catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) in critically ill children. Methods: Our ‘bundle’ has three components: insertion, management, and education. Insertion and management recommendations include: skin antisepsis with 2% chlorhexidine; maximal barrier precautions; ultrasound-guided venipuncture; tunneling of the catheter when a long indwelling time is expected; glue on the exit site; sutureless securement; use of transparent dressing; chlorhexidine sponge dressing on the 7th day; neutral displacement needle-free connectors. All CICCs were inserted by appropriately trained physicians proficient in a standardized simulation training program. Results: We compared CRBSI rate per 1000 catheters-days of CICCs inserted before adoption of our new bundle with that of CICCs inserted after implementation of the bundle. CICCs inserted after adoption of the bundle remained in place for a mean of 2.2 days longer than those inserted before. We found a drop in CRBSI rate to 10%, from 15 per 1000 catheters-days to 1.5. Conclusions: Our data suggest that a bundle aimed at minimizing CR-BSI in critically ill children should incorporate four practices: (1) ultrasound guidance, which minimizes contamination by reducing the number of attempts and possible break-down of aseptic technique; (2) tunneling the catheter to obtain exit site in the infra-clavicular area with reduced bacterial colonization; (3) glue, which seals and protects the exit site; (4) simulation-based education of the staff.

Introduction: The use of cyanoacrylate glue as sealant on the exit site of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) may offer some important clinical advantages. However, concerns exist about the potential interaction between cyanoacrylate and the material of the catheter itself. The aim of this study was to investigate the possibility of damage to the catheter secondary to a long-term contact with a two-component skin glue (N-butyl + octyl cyanoacrylate). Methods: Twelve PICCs of different brands and types were selected (11 made of polyurethane and one made of silicon). PICCs were glued onto artificial skin pads, slightly wetted with Earle solution. The pads were kept in an egg incubator at 34°C and 60% humidity, for up to twelve weeks. Possible signs of degradation were monitored by surface analyses and mechanical tests. Scanning electron microscopy observations, surface roughness measurements, pressure strength and uniaxial tests were performed. Results: Samples were analyzed after 4, 8 and 12 weeks of contact with the glue. No chemical reaction between the glue and the material of the catheters was evident. The mechanical strength of PICCs was consistently within the ranges of ISO standards. An expected increase in the stiffness of the samples covered with glue was observed in uniaxial tests. The silicon catheter was weaker than the polyurethane catheters and was damaged while trying to remove it from the pad for tests. Conclusions: The long-term use of N-butyl + octyl cyanoacrylate glue on polyurethane PICCs is not expected to be associated to any damage to the catheter.

The aims of our systematic review were to quantify the expected rate of procedural success, early and late complications during CIED implantation using US-guided puncture of the axillary vein and to perform a meta-analysis of those studies that compared the US technique (intervention) versus conventional techniques (control) in terms of complication rates. MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched for eligible studies. Pooled Odds Ratio (OR) and Pooled Mean Difference (PMD) for each predictor were calculated. The quality of evidence (QOE) was evaluated according to the GRADE guidelines. Thirteen studies were included a total of 2073 patients. The overall success of US-guided venipuncture for CIED implantation was 96.8%. As regards early complications, pneumothorax occurred in 0.19%, arterial puncture in 0.63%, and severe hematoma/bleeding requiring intervention in 1.1%. No cases of hemothorax, brachial plexus, or phrenic nerve injury were reported. As regards late complications, the incidence of pocket infection, venous thromboembolism, and leads dislodgement was respectively 0.4%, 0.8%, and 1.2%. In the meta-analysis (five studies), the intervention group (US-guided venipuncture) had a trend versus a lower likelihood of having a pneumothorax (0.19% vs 0.75%, p = 0.21), pocket hematoma (0.8% vs 1.7%, p = 0.32), infection (0.28% vs 1.05%, p = 0.29) than the control group, but this did not reach statistical significance. The overall QOE was low or very low. In conclusions we found that the US-guided axillary venipuncture for CIEDs implantation was associated with a low incidence of early and late complications and a steep learning curve.

The goal of the 2015 Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC) was to define indications and appropriate practices for peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) use; however, MAGIC recommendations virtually reduced the use of PICC in hospital settings, including critical care. The aim of this review is to present an assessment of the MAGIC guidelines, considering contemporary evidence to date. The validity of the MAGIC recommendations and their applicability to current practice are called into question given important concerns with the methodology for their development (e.g. high volume of clinical scenarios for evaluation) and the supporting evidence used. There is a considerable amount of contemporary evidence not considered in MAGIC that reports on evolving practices, techniques, and technologies targeted to reduce complications associated with central venous access devices (CVADs). Recent evidence dictates that CVADs are necessary in the intensive care unit (ICU), and that PICCs are a safe, reliable, and appropriate type of central lines, which cannot be replaced in several ICU situations. In light of evolving evidence and practice, as well as the methodological concerns identified, the MAGIC guidelines should be revisited. It is also recommended to create a clinical assessment tool that identifies potential uses of specific CVADs, based on patient needs. The choice of the CVAD should be based on unique clinical considerations and current scientific evidence, not on fears informed by antiquated data.

Background Surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most frequent health care–associated infections. One of the practices to reduce their incidence is preoperative skin antisepsis. Two of the most commonly active components used are chlorhexidine gluconate and povidone iodine. Of 3 reviews conducted between 2010 and 2012 comparing antiseptics, 2 were in favor of chlorhexidine; however, the latest was unable to draw conclusions. Purpose To verify whether recent evidence supports the hypothesis that chlorhexidine in preoperative antisepsis is more efficient than other antiseptics in reducing SSI rates. Procedures We conducted a systematic review from 2000-2014 in all languages. The primary end point was SSI incidence and secondary skin bacterial colonization. Results Nineteen studies were included. Meta-analysis were conducted for comparable studies for both outcomes. The results of the meta-analysis, including all of the studies in which chlorhexidine was compared with iodophor, were in favor of chlorhexidine for both SSI incidence (risk ratio [RR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.92) and bacterial skin colonization (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.36-0.55). Conclusions There is moderate-quality evidence supporting the use of chlorhexidine for preoperative skin antisepsis and high-quality evidence that the use of chlorhexidine is associated with fewer positive skin cultures. Further rigorous trials will be welcomed to attain stronger evidence as to the best antiseptic to be used before surgery.

Background: Technical factors at the moment of catheter insertion might have a role in peripherally inserted central catheter–related thrombotic risk. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to define the actual rate of peripherally inserted central catheter–related symptomatic deep vein thrombosis in patients in whom catheter insertion was performed according to ultrasound guidance, appropriate catheter size choice, and proper verification of tip location. Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Only prospective observational studies published in peer-reviewed journals after 2010 up to November 2018 reporting peripherally inserted central catheter–related deep vein thrombosis rate were included. All studies were of adult patients who underwent peripherally inserted central catheter insertion. Results were restricted to those studies which included in their methods ultrasound guidance for venipuncture, catheter tip location, and a catheter size selection strategy. Random-effect meta-analyses and arcsine transformation for binomial data were performed to pool deep vein thrombosis weighted frequencies. Results: Of the 1441 studies identified, 15 studies involving 5420 patients and 5914 peripherally inserted central catheters fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The weighted frequency of peripherally inserted central catheter–related deep vein thrombosis was 2.4% (95% confidence interval = 1.5–3.3) and remained low in oncologic patients (2.2%, 95% confidence interval = 0.6–3.9). Thrombotic rate was higher in onco-hematologic patients (5.9%, 95% confidence interval = 1.2–10). Considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 74.9) was observed and all studies were considered at high risk of attrition bias. Conclusions: A proper technique is crucial at the moment of peripherally inserted central catheter insertion. Peripherally inserted central catheter–related deep vein thrombosis rate appears to be low when evidence-based technical factors are taken into consideration during the insertion procedure.

Introduction:Ultrasound-guided cannulation of the axillary vein in the infraclavicular area has several potential advantages for both short-term and long-term venous access devices. Currently, there are two techniques to approach axillary vein for ultrasound-guided cannulation: out-of-plane puncture in the short-axis view and the in-plane puncture in the long-axis view. We propose a novel ultrasound-guided puncture technique of axillary vein for centrally inserted central catheter placement, which consists in the oblique-axis view of the axillary vein coupled with the in-plane puncture. The main objectives of this study were feasibility and safety of this approach. The primary endpoints were the success rate and early complications; the secondary endpoints were late complications.Methods:We analyzed data from a retrospective cohort of 80 ultrasound-guided cannulation of axillary vein performed with the oblique axis-in-plane technique in 80 cancer patients requiring a totally implantable central venous access, at CRO Aviano National Cancer Institute, during the period from January 2016 up to October 2017. We focused on the percentage of successful venous cannulation at the first attempt and on the cumulative incidence of early and late complications.Results:Axillary vein cannulation was successful at the first attempt in 77 out of 80 patients (96%). We had no significant complications during placement or in the first 48 h. The total number of catheter days was 27,432. The cumulative incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infection was of 0.036 per 1000 catheter days (only one case). We had no infection of the pocket of the reservoir, no symptomatic venous thrombosis, and no catheter migration.Conclusion:Our data show that the oblique axis-in-plane technique of the ultrasound approach to the axillary vein is feasible and safe.