Risk Factors for Midline Catheter Failure: A Secondary Analysis of an Existing Trial.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q1 Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management Pub Date : 2022-10-07 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.2147/TCRM.S383502
Amit Bahl, Steven Johnson, Nicholas Mielke, Nai-Wei Chen
{"title":"Risk Factors for Midline Catheter Failure: A Secondary Analysis of an Existing Trial.","authors":"Amit Bahl,&nbsp;Steven Johnson,&nbsp;Nicholas Mielke,&nbsp;Nai-Wei Chen","doi":"10.2147/TCRM.S383502","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>While midline catheters (MCs) are considered to be a reliable form of vascular access, up to 25% of the placements culminate in failure. We aimed to explore risk factors for MC failure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed an analysis of existing randomized controlled trial data involving a comparison of two midline catheters. The study aimed to assess risk factors related to MC failure, including patient, procedure, catheter, and vein characteristics. Cox regression was used for univariable and multivariable analyses to evaluate the association between characteristics and MC failure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 191 patients that were included in this secondary analysis, more patients were female (114/191 [59.7%]) and average age was 60.2 (SD = 16.7) years. Clinical indications for MC placement included antibiotics (60.7%), difficult venous access (32.5%), or both (6.8%). In a univariable Cox regression analysis, the increase in pulse rate (HR 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.04; <i>P</i>=0.02), temperature ≥38°C (HR 5.59; 95% CI, 1.96-15.94; <i>P</i>=0.001), oxygen saturation <93% (HR 2.91; 95% CI, 1.03-8.24; <i>P</i>=0.04), norepinephrine in dextrose infusion (HR 2.41; 95% CI, 1.17-4.97; <i>P</i>=0.02) and cephalic vein insertion (HR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.09-5.57; <i>P</i>=0.03) were all associated with higher risk of MC failure. In a multivariable Cox model, difficult venous access (aHR 2.05; 95% CI, 1.04-4.05; <i>P</i>=0.04) and norepinephrine in dextrose (aHR 2.29; 95% CI, 1.09-4.82; <i>P</i>=0.03) was associated with catheter failure.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Elevated pulse rate, decreased oxygen saturation level, temperature ≥38°C, and norepinephrine use were each associated with an increased risk of MC failure. These factors should be considered when selecting the most appropriate vascular access device for individual patients. Additionally, the cephalic vein insertion has the highest risk for MC failure and other access points could be preferentially considered.</p>","PeriodicalId":22977,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/fc/a1/tcrm-18-999.PMC9553030.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S383502","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objective: While midline catheters (MCs) are considered to be a reliable form of vascular access, up to 25% of the placements culminate in failure. We aimed to explore risk factors for MC failure.

Methods: We performed an analysis of existing randomized controlled trial data involving a comparison of two midline catheters. The study aimed to assess risk factors related to MC failure, including patient, procedure, catheter, and vein characteristics. Cox regression was used for univariable and multivariable analyses to evaluate the association between characteristics and MC failure.

Results: Among 191 patients that were included in this secondary analysis, more patients were female (114/191 [59.7%]) and average age was 60.2 (SD = 16.7) years. Clinical indications for MC placement included antibiotics (60.7%), difficult venous access (32.5%), or both (6.8%). In a univariable Cox regression analysis, the increase in pulse rate (HR 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.04; P=0.02), temperature ≥38°C (HR 5.59; 95% CI, 1.96-15.94; P=0.001), oxygen saturation <93% (HR 2.91; 95% CI, 1.03-8.24; P=0.04), norepinephrine in dextrose infusion (HR 2.41; 95% CI, 1.17-4.97; P=0.02) and cephalic vein insertion (HR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.09-5.57; P=0.03) were all associated with higher risk of MC failure. In a multivariable Cox model, difficult venous access (aHR 2.05; 95% CI, 1.04-4.05; P=0.04) and norepinephrine in dextrose (aHR 2.29; 95% CI, 1.09-4.82; P=0.03) was associated with catheter failure.

Conclusion: Elevated pulse rate, decreased oxygen saturation level, temperature ≥38°C, and norepinephrine use were each associated with an increased risk of MC failure. These factors should be considered when selecting the most appropriate vascular access device for individual patients. Additionally, the cephalic vein insertion has the highest risk for MC failure and other access points could be preferentially considered.

中线导管失效的危险因素:一项现有试验的二次分析。
目的:虽然中线导管(MCs)被认为是一种可靠的血管通路形式,但高达25%的放置最终以失败告终。我们的目的是探讨MC失败的危险因素。方法:我们对现有的两种中线导管的随机对照试验数据进行了分析。该研究旨在评估与MC衰竭相关的危险因素,包括患者、手术、导管和静脉特征。采用Cox回归进行单变量和多变量分析,以评估特征与MC失效之间的关系。结果:本次二次分析纳入的191例患者中,女性患者较多(114/191[59.7%]),平均年龄为60.2 (SD = 16.7)岁。MC放置的临床适应症包括抗生素(60.7%),静脉通道困难(32.5%),或两者兼而有之(6.8%)。在单变量Cox回归分析中,脉搏率增加(HR 1.02;95% ci, 1.00-1.04;P=0.02),温度≥38℃(HR 5.59;95% ci, 1.96-15.94;P=0.001),血氧饱和度P=0.04),葡萄糖输注去甲肾上腺素(HR 2.41;95% ci, 1.17-4.97;P=0.02)和头静脉插入(HR, 2.47;95% ci, 1.09-5.57;P=0.03)均与较高的MC衰竭风险相关。在多变量Cox模型中,静脉通路困难(aHR 2.05;95% ci, 1.04-4.05;P=0.04)和去甲肾上腺素在葡萄糖中的含量(aHR 2.29;95% ci, 1.09-4.82;P=0.03)与导管失效相关。结论:脉搏率升高、血氧饱和度降低、体温≥38°C和去甲肾上腺素的使用均与MC衰竭的风险增加相关。在为个别患者选择最合适的血管通路装置时,应考虑这些因素。此外,头静脉插入有最高的MC失效风险,可优先考虑其他接入点。
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
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.60%
发文量
139
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management is an international, peer-reviewed journal of clinical therapeutics and risk management, focusing on concise rapid reporting of clinical studies in all therapeutic areas, outcomes, safety, and programs for the effective, safe, and sustained use of medicines, therapeutic and surgical interventions in all clinical areas. The journal welcomes submissions covering original research, clinical and epidemiological studies, reviews, guidelines, expert opinion and commentary. The journal will consider case reports but only if they make a valuable and original contribution to the literature. As of 18th March 2019, Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management will no longer consider meta-analyses for publication. The journal does not accept study protocols, animal-based or cell line-based studies.
×
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