Central vascular catheters versus peripherally inserted central catheters in nurse anesthesia. A perspective within the Greek health system

Purpose: We present a study comparing the insertion of central vascular catheter (CVC) and peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) by an anesthesia nurse at 2 Greek University Hospitals. Methods: Eighty patients, aged 20-80 years, were enrolled in the study. Patients were divided into 2 groups. In group A (41 patients), a CVC was inserted in the internal jugular vein. In group B (39 patients), a pressure-injectable PICC was inserted in the basilica vein. Results: Correlations between the methods applied, the patients' characteristics, the procedures' characteristics and the overall satisfaction scores for each procedure were examined. The final results show that the patients of group B (PICC method) were more satisfied with the procedure than the patients of group A (CVC method), at the statistical significance level of a=0.01. Also, according to the results of the analysis, the PICC method offers significantly more comfort and relative satisfaction than the CVC method, at the statistical significance level of a=0.01. The satisfaction scores of "physicians" were statistically more significant, at a=0.01, for the patients of group A (classic CVCs) mainly because of the insufficient flow rate of the PICCs when compared with the CVCs and especially if one considers the fact that the physicians did not have any experience with the PICC method at all. Conclusions: PICCs under ultrasound guidance constitute the solution of choice for patients and they definitely surpass the CVCs focusing mainly on the improvement of the quality of life and the satisfaction of patients

A comparison of 2 venous puncture sites for peripheral implanted ports

The use of peripheral implanted ports to administer parenteral nutrition in a number of patient cohorts is increasingly seen as a safe alternative to chest ports with equivalence in long-term outcomes. Two insertion sites on the upper arm were compared using the zone insertion method (ZIM), which was developed as an approach to optimize and reduce catheter-related exit site complications. The ZIM divides the medial upper arm into 3 main colors, red, green, and yellow, which are based on musculoskeletal, skin, and vessel characteristics. The optimal exit site is considered to be the green zone, the middle third of the upper arm. Thirty-five patients were allocated to vein puncture at the yellow/green zone (group A) and 35 patients at the yellow zone near the axilla (group B). All devices were implanted in the distal green zone. Successful peripheral port implantation was 91.4% (n = 35) for group A and 100.0% (n = 35) for group B (P = .07). No procedural or postprocedural complications were observed

Peripherally inserted central catheter ports: a vascular access specialist's systematic approach

Implanted ports are an important vascular access device for patients with malignancies requiring long-term chemotherapy. Peripherally placed ports are increasing in use as they are a safe, cost-effective alternative to chest-placed ports. Most peripheral ports can be placed bedside by specialist nurses in designated clinical areas rather than costly operating rooms or interventional radiology suites. Peripheral ports are considered less invasive compared with chest port placement because of reduced procedural risk. To enhance the success rate of peripheral port placement and minimize risks, we provide vascular access specialists with a systematic approach along with some technical advice tips and tricks to help avoid mechanical complications such as repeated puncture of the vein, excessive bleeding, thrombosis or skin dehiscence, as well as latent complications such as catheter migration and catheter-related blood stream infection

Sepsis at ICU admission does not decrease 30-day survival in very old patients: a post-hoc analysis of the VIP1 multinational cohort study

Background: The number of intensive care patients aged ≥ 80 years (Very old Intensive Care Patients; VIPs) is growing. VIPs have high mortality and morbidity and the benefits of ICU admission are frequently questioned. Sepsis incidence has risen in recent years and identification of outcomes is of considerable public importance. We aimed to determine whether VIPs admitted for sepsis had different outcomes than those admitted for other acute reasons and identify potential prognostic factors for 30-day survival. Results: This prospective study included VIPs with Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores ≥ 2 acutely admitted to 307 ICUs in 21 European countries. Of 3869 acutely admitted VIPs, 493 (12.7%) [53.8% male, median age 83 (81-86) years] were admitted for sepsis. Sepsis was defined according to clinical criteria; suspected or demonstrated focus of infection and SOFA score ≥ 2 points. Compared to VIPs admitted for other acute reasons, VIPs admitted for sepsis were younger, had a higher SOFA score (9 vs. 7, p < 0.0001), required more vasoactive drugs [82.2% vs. 55.1%, p < 0.0001] and renal replacement therapies [17.4% vs. 9.9%; p < 0.0001], and had more life-sustaining treatment limitations [37.3% vs. 32.1%; p = 0.02]. Frailty was similar in both groups. Unadjusted 30-day survival was not significantly different between the two groups. After adjustment for age, gender, frailty, and SOFA score, sepsis had no impact on 30-day survival [HR 0.99 (95% CI 0.86-1.15), p = 0.917]. Inverse-probability weight (IPW)-adjusted survival curves for the first 30 days after ICU admission were similar for acute septic and non-septic patients [HR: 1.00 (95% CI 0.87-1.17), p = 0.95]. A matched-pair analysis in which patients with sepsis were matched with two control patients of the same gender with the same age, SOFA score, and level of frailty was also performed. A Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified on the matched pairs showed that 30-day survival was similar in both groups [57.2% (95% CI 52.7-60.7) vs. 57.1% (95% CI 53.7-60.1), p = 0.85]. Conclusions: After adjusting for organ dysfunction, sepsis at admission was not independently associated with decreased 30-day survival in this multinational study of 3869 VIPs. Age, frailty, and SOFA score were independently associated with survival

The impact of frailty on ICU and 30-day mortality and the level of care in very elderly patients (≥ 80 years)

Purpose: Very old critical ill patients are a rapid expanding group in the ICU. Indications for admission, triage criteria and level of care are frequently discussed for such patients. However, most relevant outcome studies in this group frequently find an increased mortality and a reduced quality of life in survivors. The main objective was to study the impact of frailty compared with other variables with regards to short-term outcome in the very old ICU population. Methods: A transnational prospective cohort study from October 2016 to May 2017 with 30 days follow-up was set up by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. In total 311 ICUs from 21 European countries participated. The ICUs included the first consecutive 20 very old (≥ 80 years) patients admitted to the ICU within a 3-month inclusion period. Frailty, SOFA score and therapeutic procedures were registered, in addition to limitations of care. For measurement of frailty the Clinical Frailty Scale was used at ICU admission. The main outcomes were ICU and 30-day mortality and survival at 30 days. Results: A total of 5021 patients with a median age of 84 years (IQR 81–86 years) were included in the final analysis, 2404 (47.9%) were women. Admission was classified as acute in 4215 (83.9%) of the patients. Overall ICU and 30-day mortality rates were 22.1% and 32.6%. During ICU stay 23.8% of the patients did not receive specific ICU procedures: ventilation, vasoactive drugs or renal replacement therapy. Frailty (values ≥ 5) was found in 43.1% and was independently related to 30-day survival (HR 1.54; 95% CI 1.38–1.73) for frail versus non-frail. Conclusions: Among very old patients (≥ 80 years) admitted to the ICU, the consecutive classes in Clinical Frailty Scale were inversely associated with short-term survival. The scale had a very low number of missing data. These findings provide support to add frailty to the clinical assessment in this patient group. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT03134807)

Withholding or withdrawing of life-sustaining therapy in older adults (≥ 80 years) admitted to the intensive care unit

PURPOSE: To document and analyse the decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment (LST) in a population of very old patients admitted to the ICU. METHODS: This prospective study included intensive care patients aged ≥ 80 years in 309 ICUs from 21 European countries with 30-day mortality follow-up. RESULTS: LST limitation was identified in 1356/5021 (27.2%) of patients: 15% had a withholding decision and 12.2% a withdrawal decision (including those with a previous withholding decision). Patients with LST limitation were older, more frail, more severely ill and less frequently electively admitted. Patients with withdrawal of LST were more frequently male and had a longer ICU length of stay. The ICU and 30-day mortality were, respectively, 29.1 and 53.1% in the withholding group and 82.2% and 93.1% in the withdrawal group. LST was less frequently limited in eastern and southern European countries than in northern Europe. The patient-independent factors associated with LST limitation were: acute ICU admission (OR 5.77, 95% CI 4.32-7.7), Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) score (OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.78-2.42), increased age (each 5 years of increase in age had a OR of 1.22 (95% CI 1.12-1.34) and SOFA score [OR of 1.07 (95% CI 1.05-1.09 per point)]. The frequency of LST limitation was higher in countries with high GDP and was lower in religious countries. CONCLUSIONS: The most important patient variables associated with the instigation of LST limitation were acute admission, frailty, age, admission SOFA score and country. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NTC03134807)