Use of peripherally inserted central catheters with a dedicated vascular access specialists team versus centrally inserted central catheters in the management of septic shock patients in the ICU.

Q3 Medicine
Hassan A Raza, Brandon T Nokes, Bruno Alvarez, Julie Colquist, John Park, Rahul Kashyap, Bhavesh Patel, Rodrigo Cartin-Ceba
{"title":"Use of peripherally inserted central catheters with a dedicated vascular access specialists team versus centrally inserted central catheters in the management of septic shock patients in the ICU.","authors":"Hassan A Raza, Brandon T Nokes, Bruno Alvarez, Julie Colquist, John Park, Rahul Kashyap, Bhavesh Patel, Rodrigo Cartin-Ceba","doi":"10.1177/11297298221105323","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are increasingly recognized as an alternative to centrally inserted central catheters (CICCs) in critical care, yet the data regarding the safety and feasibility of this choice in septic shock management is growing but still lacking. In this study, we aimed to determine the feasibility, safety, and impact on outcomes of using dedicated vascular access specialist (VAS) teams to insert PICCs versus CICCs on patients admitted to the ICU with septic shock.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Mayo Clinic Rochester Medical ICU and Mayo Clinic Arizona Multidisciplinary ICU from 2013 to 2016.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>All adult patients hospitalized with diagnosis of septic shock excluding patients who declined authorization for review of their medical records, mixed shock states, and readmissions.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Measurement and main results: </strong>Comprehensive data regarding septic shock diagnosis and resuscitation were abstracted from electronic medical records. A total of 562 patients with septic shock were included in the study; 215 patients were resuscitated utilizing a PICC and 347 were resuscitated using a CICC. On univariate analysis, the time to central line insertion and time to vasopressor initiation were found to be reduced in those who received PICC at time of ICU admission versus CICC. Other favorable outcomes were also observed in those who received PICC versus CICC including shorter ICU length of stay and lower unadjusted hospital mortality. A multivariable analysis for hospital mortality showed that after adjusting for important covariates, neither the time to central line insertion nor the time to vasopressor initiation was associated with a lower hospital mortality.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Across two tertiary referral centers within the same enterprise, use of a dedicated VAS team for insertion of PICCs for initial resuscitation in patients with septic shock was feasible and associated with shorter time to central venous access and initiation of vasopressors; however, adjusted hospital mortality was not different between the two groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":35321,"journal":{"name":"JAVA - Journal of the Association for Vascular Access","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAVA - Journal of the Association for Vascular Access","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11297298221105323","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/6/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are increasingly recognized as an alternative to centrally inserted central catheters (CICCs) in critical care, yet the data regarding the safety and feasibility of this choice in septic shock management is growing but still lacking. In this study, we aimed to determine the feasibility, safety, and impact on outcomes of using dedicated vascular access specialist (VAS) teams to insert PICCs versus CICCs on patients admitted to the ICU with septic shock.

Design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Mayo Clinic Rochester Medical ICU and Mayo Clinic Arizona Multidisciplinary ICU from 2013 to 2016.

Patients: All adult patients hospitalized with diagnosis of septic shock excluding patients who declined authorization for review of their medical records, mixed shock states, and readmissions.

Interventions: None.

Measurement and main results: Comprehensive data regarding septic shock diagnosis and resuscitation were abstracted from electronic medical records. A total of 562 patients with septic shock were included in the study; 215 patients were resuscitated utilizing a PICC and 347 were resuscitated using a CICC. On univariate analysis, the time to central line insertion and time to vasopressor initiation were found to be reduced in those who received PICC at time of ICU admission versus CICC. Other favorable outcomes were also observed in those who received PICC versus CICC including shorter ICU length of stay and lower unadjusted hospital mortality. A multivariable analysis for hospital mortality showed that after adjusting for important covariates, neither the time to central line insertion nor the time to vasopressor initiation was associated with a lower hospital mortality.

Conclusions: Across two tertiary referral centers within the same enterprise, use of a dedicated VAS team for insertion of PICCs for initial resuscitation in patients with septic shock was feasible and associated with shorter time to central venous access and initiation of vasopressors; however, adjusted hospital mortality was not different between the two groups.

在重症监护室对脓毒性休克患者进行治疗时,使用配备专门血管通路专家团队的外周置入中央导管与中央置入中央导管的对比。
目的:在重症监护领域,外周置入中心导管(PICC)越来越多地被认为是中心置入中心导管(CICC)的替代品,但有关这种选择在脓毒性休克治疗中的安全性和可行性的数据越来越多,但仍然缺乏。在这项研究中,我们旨在确定使用专门的血管通路专家(VAS)团队插入 PICC 与 CICC 相比,对脓毒性休克入住重症监护病房患者的可行性、安全性和对预后的影响:设计:回顾性队列研究:梅奥诊所罗切斯特医疗重症监护室和梅奥诊所亚利桑那多学科重症监护室(2013-2016年):所有诊断为脓毒性休克住院的成人患者,不包括拒绝授权查阅病历的患者、混合休克状态患者和再入院患者:测量和主要结果从电子病历中抽取了有关脓毒性休克诊断和复苏的综合数据。研究共纳入了 562 名脓毒性休克患者,其中 215 人使用 PICC 进行复苏,347 人使用 CICC 进行复苏。通过单变量分析发现,与使用 CICC 相比,在入住重症监护室时使用 PICC 的患者插入中心管路的时间和开始使用血管加压剂的时间更短。接受 PICC 与 CICC 相比,还观察到其他有利结果,包括缩短了重症监护室的住院时间,降低了未经调整的住院死亡率。住院死亡率的多变量分析表明,在对重要的协变量进行调整后,插入中心静脉置管的时间和开始使用血管加压器的时间都与住院死亡率的降低无关:结论:在同一企业的两家三级转诊中心中,使用专门的 VAS 团队为脓毒性休克患者插入 PICC 进行初步复苏是可行的,而且与缩短中心静脉通路时间和开始使用血管加压药有关;但是,两组患者的调整后住院死亡率并无差异。
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
JAVA - Journal of the Association for Vascular Access
JAVA - Journal of the Association for Vascular Access Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: The Association for Vascular Access (AVA) is an association of healthcare professionals founded in 1985 to promote the emerging vascular access specialty. Today, its multidisciplinary membership advances research, professional and public education to shape practice and enhance patient outcomes, and partners with the device manufacturing community to bring about evidence-based innovations in vascular access.
×
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