7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters and Hemodialysis Outcomes

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="d8307989e159"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d8307989e160">Background and objectives</h5> <p id="d8307989e162">Use of peripherally inserted central catheters has expanded rapidly, but the consequences for patients who eventually require hemodialysis are undefined. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="d8307989e164"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d8307989e165">Design, setting, participants, &amp; measurements</h5> <p id="d8307989e167">Our national, population–based analysis included 33,918 adult Medicare beneficiaries from the US Renal Data System who initiated hemodialysis with central venous catheters as their sole vascular access in 2010 and 2011. We used linked Medicare claims to identify peripherally inserted central catheter exposures and evaluate the associations of peripherally inserted central catheter placement with transition to working arteriovenous fistulas or grafts and patient survival using a Cox model with time-dependent variables. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="d8307989e169"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d8307989e170">Results</h5> <p id="d8307989e172">Among 33,918 individuals initiating hemodialysis with a catheter as sole access, 12.6% had received at least one peripherally inserted central catheter. Median follow-up was 404 days (interquartile range, 103–680 days). Among 6487 peripherally inserted central catheters placed, 3435 (53%) were placed within the 2 years before hemodialysis initiation, and 3052 (47%) were placed afterward. Multiple peripherally inserted central catheters were placed in 30% of patients exposed to peripherally inserted central catheters. Recipients of peripherally inserted central catheters were more likely to be women and have comorbid diagnoses and less likely to have received predialysis nephrology care. After adjustment for clinical and demographic factors, peripherally inserted central catheters placed before or after hemodialysis initiation were independently associated with lower likelihoods of transition to any working fistula or graft (hazard ratio for prehemodialysis peripherally inserted central catheter, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 0.91; hazard ratio for posthemodialysis peripherally inserted central catheter, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.73 to 0.89). </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="d8307989e174"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d8307989e175">Conclusions</h5> <p id="d8307989e177">Peripherally inserted central catheter placement was common and associated with adverse vascular access outcomes. Recognition of potential long–term adverse consequences of peripherally inserted central catheters is essential for clinicians caring for patients with CKD. </p> </div>

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Associations between hemodialysis access type and clinical outcomes: a systematic review.

          Clinical practice guidelines recommend an arteriovenous fistula as the preferred vascular access for hemodialysis, but quantitative associations between vascular access type and various clinical outcomes remain controversial. We performed a systematic review of cohort studies to evaluate the associations between type of vascular access (arteriovenous fistula, arteriovenous graft, and central venous catheter) and risk for death, infection, and major cardiovascular events. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and article reference lists and extracted data describing study design, participants, vascular access type, clinical outcomes, and risk for bias. We identified 3965 citations, of which 67 (62 cohort studies comprising 586,337 participants) met our inclusion criteria. In a random effects meta-analysis, compared with persons with fistulas, those individuals using catheters had higher risks for all-cause mortality (risk ratio=1.53, 95% CI=1.41-1.67), fatal infections (2.12, 1.79-2.52), and cardiovascular events (1.38, 1.24-1.54). Similarly, compared with persons with grafts, those individuals using catheters had higher risks for mortality (1.38, 1.25-1.52), fatal infections (1.49, 1.15-1.93), and cardiovascular events (1.26, 1.11-1.43). Compared with persons with fistulas, those individuals with grafts had increased all-cause mortality (1.18, 1.09-1.27) and fatal infection (1.36, 1.17-1.58), but we did not detect a difference in the risk for cardiovascular events (1.07, 0.95-1.21). The risk for bias, especially selection bias, was high. In conclusion, persons using catheters for hemodialysis seem to have the highest risks for death, infections, and cardiovascular events compared with other vascular access types, and patients with usable fistulas have the lowest risk.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC): Results From a Multispecialty Panel Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

            Use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) has grown substantially in recent years. Increasing use has led to the realization that PICCs are associated with important complications, including thrombosis and infection. Moreover, some PICCs may not be placed for clinically valid reasons. Defining appropriate indications for insertion, maintenance, and care of PICCs is thus important for patient safety. An international panel was convened that applied the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to develop criteria for use of PICCs. After systematic reviews of the literature, scenarios related to PICC use, care, and maintenance were developed according to patient population (for example, general hospitalized, critically ill, cancer, kidney disease), indication for insertion (infusion of peripherally compatible infusates vs. vesicants), and duration of use (≤5 days, 6 to 14 days, 15 to 30 days, or ≥31 days). Within each scenario, appropriateness of PICC use was compared with that of other venous access devices. After review of 665 scenarios, 253 (38%) were rated as appropriate, 124 (19%) as neutral/uncertain, and 288 (43%) as inappropriate. For peripherally compatible infusions, PICC use was rated as inappropriate when the proposed duration of use was 5 or fewer days. Midline catheters and ultrasonography-guided peripheral intravenous catheters were preferred to PICCs for use between 6 and 14 days. In critically ill patients, nontunneled central venous catheters were preferred over PICCs when 14 or fewer days of use were likely. In patients with cancer, PICCs were rated as appropriate for irritant or vesicant infusion, regardless of duration. The panel of experts used a validated method to develop appropriate indications for PICC use across patient populations. These criteria can be used to improve care, inform quality improvement efforts, and advance the safety of medical patients.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The risk of bloodstream infection associated with peripherally inserted central catheters compared with central venous catheters in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

              Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are associated with central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI). The magnitude of this risk relative to central venous catheters (CVCs) is unknown. To compare risk of CLABSI between PICCs and CVCs. MEDLINE, CinAHL, Scopus, EmBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched. Full-text studies comparing the risk of CLABSI between PICCs and CVCs were included. Studies involving adults 18 years of age or older who underwent insertion of a PICC or a CVC and reported CLABSI were included in our analysis. Studies were evaluated using the Downs and Black scale for risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were used to generate summary estimates of CLABSI risk in patients with PICCs versus CVCs. Of 1,185 studies identified, 23 studies involving 57,250 patients met eligibility criteria. Twenty of 23 eligible studies reported the total number of CLABSI episodes in patients with PICCs and CVCs. Pooled meta-analyses of these studies revealed that PICCs were associated with a lower risk of CLABSI than were CVCs (relative risk [RR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.94). Statistical heterogeneity prompted subgroup analysis, which demonstrated that CLABSI reduction was greatest in outpatients (RR [95% CI], 0.22 [0.18-0.27]) compared with hospitalized patients who received PICCs (RR [95% CI], 0.73 [0.54-0.98]). Thirteen of the included 23 studies reported CLABSI per catheter-day. Within these studies, PICC-related CLABSI occurred as frequently as CLABSI from CVCs (incidence rate ratio [95% CI], 0.91 [0.46-1.79]). Only 1 randomized trial met inclusion criteria. CLABSI definition and infection prevention strategies were variably reported. Few studies reported infections by catheter-days. Although PICCs are associated with a lower risk of CLABSI than CVCs in outpatients, hospitalized patients may be just as likely to experience CLABSI with PICCs as with CVCs. Consideration of risks and benefits before PICC use in inpatient settings is warranted.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
                CJASN
                American Society of Nephrology (ASN)
                1555-9041
                1555-905X
                August 08 2016
                August 08 2016
                August 08 2016
                June 23 2016
                : 11
                : 8
                : 1434-1440
                Article
                10.2215/CJN.01980216
                4974875
                27340280
                862e0cab-f0c4-41ed-acde-9d94a2d5bf90
                © 2016
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article