Safety and Efficacy of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Placement by Surgical Intensivist-Led Vascular Access Team.

IF 0.8 Q4 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Byunghyuk Yu, Jihoon Hong
{"title":"Safety and Efficacy of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Placement by Surgical Intensivist-Led Vascular Access Team.","authors":"Byunghyuk Yu,&nbsp;Jihoon Hong","doi":"10.5758/vsi.220054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of bedside peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) placement under ultrasonography (USG) guidance in the general ward by a surgical intensivist-led vascular access team versus that of PICC placement in the intensive care unit (ICU) or fluoroscopy unit.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We conducted this retrospective study of all patients who underwent PICC placement between March 2021 and May 2022. Clinical, periprocedural, and outcome data were compared for PICC placement in the ICU, general ward, and fluoroscopy unit groups, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 354 PICC placements were made in 301 patients. Among them, USG-guided PICC placement was performed in 103 and 147 cases in the ICU and general ward, respectively, while fluoroscopy-guided PICC placement was performed in 104 cases. USG-guided PICC placement more often required post-procedural catheter repositioning than fluoroscopy-guided PICC placement (P<0.001), but there was no significant difference in any adverse events (P=0.796). In addition, USG-guided PICC placement in the general ward was more efficient than fluoroscopy-guided PICC placement (0.73 days vs. 5.73 days, respectively; P<0.001). In the multivariate analysis, previous PICC placement within 6 months was an independent risk factor for a PICC-associated bloodstream infection (odds ratio, 2.835; 95% confidence interval, 1.143-7.034; P=0.025).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>USG-guided PICC placement in the general ward by a surgical intensivist-led vascular access team has comparable safety and efficiency to that of USG-guided PICC placement in the ICU or fluoroscopy-guided PICC placement.</p>","PeriodicalId":52311,"journal":{"name":"Vascular Specialist International","volume":"38 ","pages":"41"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/72/2f/vsi-38-41.PMC9812687.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vascular Specialist International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5758/vsi.220054","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of bedside peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) placement under ultrasonography (USG) guidance in the general ward by a surgical intensivist-led vascular access team versus that of PICC placement in the intensive care unit (ICU) or fluoroscopy unit.

Materials and methods: We conducted this retrospective study of all patients who underwent PICC placement between March 2021 and May 2022. Clinical, periprocedural, and outcome data were compared for PICC placement in the ICU, general ward, and fluoroscopy unit groups, respectively.

Results: A total of 354 PICC placements were made in 301 patients. Among them, USG-guided PICC placement was performed in 103 and 147 cases in the ICU and general ward, respectively, while fluoroscopy-guided PICC placement was performed in 104 cases. USG-guided PICC placement more often required post-procedural catheter repositioning than fluoroscopy-guided PICC placement (P<0.001), but there was no significant difference in any adverse events (P=0.796). In addition, USG-guided PICC placement in the general ward was more efficient than fluoroscopy-guided PICC placement (0.73 days vs. 5.73 days, respectively; P<0.001). In the multivariate analysis, previous PICC placement within 6 months was an independent risk factor for a PICC-associated bloodstream infection (odds ratio, 2.835; 95% confidence interval, 1.143-7.034; P=0.025).

Conclusion: USG-guided PICC placement in the general ward by a surgical intensivist-led vascular access team has comparable safety and efficiency to that of USG-guided PICC placement in the ICU or fluoroscopy-guided PICC placement.

由外科强化医师领导的血管通路小组在周围置入中心导管的安全性和有效性。
目的:本研究旨在评价超声(USG)指导下在普通病房由外科重症监护医师领导的血管通路小组放置床边周围插入中心导管(PICC)与在重症监护病房(ICU)或透视病房放置PICC的安全性和有效性。材料和方法:我们对2021年3月至2022年5月期间接受PICC植入的所有患者进行了回顾性研究。分别比较PICC放置在ICU、普通病房和透视单元组的临床、围手术期和结局数据。结果:301例患者共植入PICC 354个。其中,usg引导下PICC放置在ICU和普通病房分别为103例和147例,透视下PICC放置104例。usg引导下的PICC放置比透视下的PICC放置更需要术后重新定位导管(结论:usg引导下的PICC放置在普通病房,由外科重症监护医师领导的血管通路小组,与usg引导下的PICC放置在ICU或透视下的PICC放置具有相当的安全性和有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
11.10%
发文量
29
审稿时长
17 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信