Search

The use of ultrasound (US) has been proposed to reduce the number of complications and to increase the safety and quality of central venous catheter (CVC) placement. In this review, we describe the rationale for the use of US during CVC placement, the basic principles of this technique, and the current evidence and existing guidelines for its use. In addition, we recommend a structured approach for US-guided central venous access for clinical practice. Static and real-time US can be used to visualize the anatomy and patency of the target vein in a short-axis and a long-axis view. US-guided needle advancement can be performed in an "out-of-plane" and an "in-plane" technique. There is clear evidence that US offers gains in safety and quality during CVC placement in the internal jugular vein. For the subclavian and femoral veins, US offers small gains in safety and quality. Based on the available evidence from clinical studies, several guidelines from medical societies strongly recommend the use of US for CVC placement in the internal jugular vein. Data from survey studies show that there is still a gap between the existing evidence and guidelines and the use of US in clinical practice. For clinical practice, we recommend a six-step systematic approach for US-guided central venous access that includes assessing the target vein (anatomy and vessel localization, vessel patency), using real-time US guidance for puncture of the vein, and confirming the correct needle, wire, and catheter position in the vein. To achieve the best skill level for CVC placement the knowledge from anatomic landmark techniques and the knowledge from US-guided CVC placement need to be combined and integrated.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections cause great concern in intensive care units (ICUs) [1]. Although strict infection control protocols have reduced staphylococcal colonization, the ICU still represents a reservoir for MRSA infections, playing a role in their circulation to multiple wards and hospitals [2–4]. In critically ill patients, lack of adequate treatment may lead to increased mortality [1]. For this reason, broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy is often justified among critically ill patients. We retrospectively analyzed the characteristics of S. aureus bloodstream infections (SA-BSI) from two Italian University hospitals during 2010–2014. A total of 17/337 (5 %) were ICU patients; of these, 16 (94 %) had MRSA-BSI compared with 36 % (116/320) from other wards (P

Background Superficial culture has a high negative predictive value in the assessment of catheter tip colonization (CC) and catheter-related bloodstream infection (C-RBSI). However, the process of hub culture requires the hubs to be swabbed, and this carries a risk of dislodging the biofilm. At present, most catheter hubs are closed by needleless connectors (NCs) that are periodically replaced. Our objective was to compare the yield of SC (skin + hub culture) with that of skin + NC culture in the assessment of CC and C-RBSI. Methods During 5 months, we included the patients on the Major Heart Surgery ICU when a central venous catheter (CVC) remained in place ≥7 days after insertion. SCs were taken simultaneously when the NC was withdrawn and processed by the semi-quantitative method, even when the catheter was not removed. All catheter tips were cultured. All NCs belonging to a single catheter lumen were individually flushed with 100 μl of brain-heart infusion (BHI) broth. We considered the lumen to be colonized when ≥1 NC culture from the lumen flush was positive. We collected a total of 60 catheters. Results The overall CC rate was 15.0 %, and we confirmed two episodes of C-RBSI. The validity values after the comparison of SCs with skin + NC culture for prediction of CC were the following: sensitivity 66.7 % vs. 77.8 %, and negative predictive value 93.6 % vs. 93.1 %. The sensitivity and negative predictive value for prediction of C-RBSI was 100 % for both SC and skin + NC culture. Conclusion The combination of skin and flushed NC culture can be an alternative to conventional SC for ruling out CC and C-RBSI.

Background Culture of catheter hubs and skin surrounding the catheter entry site has a negative predictive value for catheter tip colonization. However, manipulation of the hub for culture requires the hubs to be swabbed, introducing potential dislodging of biofilm and subsequent migration of microorganisms. Hubs are usually closed with needleless connectors (NCs), which are replaced regularly. Our objective was to evaluate whether culture of flushed withdrawn NCs is an alternative to hub culture when investigating central venous catheter colonization. Methods The study population comprised 49 intensive care unit patients whose central venous catheters had been in place for at least 7 days. Cultures of NCs and skin were obtained weekly. Results We included 82 catheters with more than 7 days’ indwelling time. The catheter tip colonization rate was 18.3 % (15/82). Analysis of skin and NC cultures revealed a 92.5 % negative predictive value for catheter colonization. Three episodes of catheter-related bloodstream infection (C-RBSI) occurred in patients with colonized catheters. Conclusion Surveillance of NC and skin cultures could help to identify patients at risk for C-RBSI.

Background Sepsis is a leading cause of death and long-term disability in developed countries. A comprehensive report on the incidence, clinical characteristics, and evolving management of sepsis is important. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the characteristics, management, and outcomes of patients with severe sepsis in Japan. Methods This is a cohort study of the Focused Outcomes Research in Emergency Care in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Sepsis, and Trauma (FORECAST) study, which was a multicenter, prospective cohort study conducted at 59 intensive care units (ICUs) from January 2016 to March 2017. We included adult patients with severe sepsis based on the sepsis-2 criteria. Results In total, 1184 patients (median age 73 years, interquartile range (IQR) 64–81) with severe sepsis were admitted to the ICU during the study period. The most common comorbidity was diabetes mellitus (23%). Moreover, approximately 63% of patients had septic shock. The median Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score was 9 (IQR 6–11). The most common site of infection was the lung (31%). Approximately 54% of the participants had positive blood cultures. The compliance rates for the entire 3-h bundle, measurement of central venous pressure, and assessment of central venous oxygen saturation were 64%, 26%, and 7%, respectively. A multilevel logistic regression model showed that closed ICUs and non-university hospitals were more compliant with the entire 3-h bundle. The in-hospital mortality rate of patients with severe sepsis was 23% (21–26%). Older age, multiple comorbidities, suspected site of infection, and increasing SOFA scores correlated with in-hospital mortality, based on the generalized estimating equation model. The length of hospital stay was 24 (12–46) days. Approximately 37% of the patients were discharged home after recovery. Conclusion Our prospective study showed that sepsis management in Japan was characterized by a high compliance rate for the 3-h bundle and low compliance rate for central venous catheter measurements. The in-hospital mortality rate in Japan was comparable to that of other developed countries. Only one third of the patients were discharged home, considering the aging population with multiple comorbidities in the ICUs in Japan. Trial registration UMIN-CTR, UMIN000019742. Registered on 16 November 2015. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-018-2186-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Expanded abstract Citation ProCESS Investigators, Yealy DM, Kellum JA, Huang DT, Barnato AE, Weissfeld LA, Pike F, Terndrup T, Wang HE, Hou PC, LoVecchio F, Filbin MR, Shapiro NI, Angus DC. A randomized trial of protocol-based care for early septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2014; 370:1683–93. Background In a single-center study published more than a decade ago involving patients presenting to the emergency department with severe sepsis and septic shock, mortality was markedly lower among those who were treated according to a 6-h protocol of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT), in which intravenous fluids, vasopressors, inotropes, and blood transfusions were adjusted to reach central hemodynamic targets including central venous pressure, central venous oxygen saturation, and indirect estimates of cardiac output, than among those receiving usual care. Methods Objective: The objective was to determine whether these EGDT findings were generalizable and whether all aspects of the EGDT protocol were necessary to achieve those outcomes. Design: A multicenter randomized three-arm controlled trial. Setting: Thirty-one academic emergency departments in the United States. Subjects: Patients older than 18 years of age presenting to the emergency department with septic shock. Intervention: Patients were assigned to one of three groups for 6 h of resuscitation: protocol-based EGDT as defined by River and colleagues; protocol-based standard therapy that did not require the placement of a central venous catheter, administration of inotropes, or blood transfusions; and usual care which mandated no specific monitoring or management approaches. Outcomes: The primary end point was 60-day in-hospital mortality. Also tested sequentially was whether protocol-based care (EGDT and standard therapy groups combined) was superior to usual care and whether protocol-based EGDT was superior to protocol-based standard therapy. Secondary outcomes included longer-term mortality and the need for organ support. Results A total of 1,351 patients were enrolled, of whom 1,341 were evaluable due to patient/family request: 439 were randomly assigned to protocol-based EGDT, 446 to protocol-based standard therapy, and 456 to usual care. Resuscitation strategies differed significantly with respect to the monitoring of central venous pressure and central venous oxygen and the use of intravenous fluids, vasopressors, inotropes, and blood transfusions. By 60 days, there were 92 deaths in the protocol-based EGDT group (21.0 %), 81 in the protocol-based standard therapy group (18.2 %), and 86 in the usual care group (18.9 %) (relative risk with protocol-based therapy versus usual care, 1.04; 95 % confidence interval, 0.82 to 1.31; P = 0.83; relative risk with protocol-based EGDT versus protocol-based standard therapy, 1.15; 95 % CI, 0.88 to 1.51; P = 0.31). There were no significant differences in 90-day mortality, 1-year mortality, or the need for organ support. Conclusions In a multicenter trial conducted in the tertiary care setting, protocol-based resuscitation of patients in whom septic shock was diagnosed in the emergency department did not improve outcomes.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), including pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep venous thrombosis (DVT), is a common and severe complication of critical illness. Although well documented in the general population, the prevalence of PE is less known in the ICU, where it is more difficult to diagnose and to treat. Critically ill patients are at high risk of VTE because they combine both general risk factors together with specific ICU risk factors of VTE, like sedation, immobilization, vasopressors or central venous catheter. Compression ultrasonography and computed tomography (CT) scan are the primary tools to diagnose DVT and PE, respectively, in the ICU. CT scan, as well as transesophageal echography, are good for evaluating the severity of PE. Thromboprophylaxis is needed in all ICU patients, mainly with low molecular weight heparin, such as fragmine, which can be used even in cases of non-severe renal failure. Mechanical thromboprophylaxis has to be used if anticoagulation is not possible. Nevertheless, VTE can occur despite well-conducted thromboprophylaxis.

that ultrasound-guided MST was not significantly associated with improvement in first-attempt success (RR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.16, P=0.090) compared with the traditional blind puncture, but ultrasound-guided MST significantly reduced the incidence of complication after surgery (RR = 0.24, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.76, P = 0.015). In summary, ultrasound-guided MST is superior to the traditional blind puncture technique for PICC, especially for postoperative complications. It should be generalized to clinical application for PICC.

Introduction The importance of accidental catheter removal (ACR) lies in the complications caused by the removal itself and by catheter reinsertion. To the best of our knowledge, no studies have analyzed accidental removal of various types of catheters in the intensive care unit (ICU). The objective of the present study was to analyze the incidence of ACR for all types of catheters in the ICU. Methods This was a prospective and observational study, conducted in a 24-bed medical/surgical ICU in a university hospital. We included all consecutive patients admitted to the ICU over 18 months (1 May 2000 to 31 October 2001). The incidences of ACR for all types of catheters (both per 100 catheters and per 100 catheter-days) were determined. Results A total of 988 patients were included. There were no significant differences in ACR incidence between the four central venous access sites (peripheral, jugular, subclavian and femoral) or between the four arterial access sites (radial, femoral, pedal and humeral). However, the incidence of ACR was higher for arterial than for central venous catheters (1.12/100 catheter-days versus 2.02/100 catheter-days; P < 0.001). The incidences of ACR/100 nonvascular catheter-days were as follows: endotracheal tube 0.79; nasogastric tube 4.48; urinary catheter 0.32; thoracic drain 0.56; abdominal drain 0.67; and intraventricular brain drain 0.66. Conclusion We found ACR incidences for central venous catheter, arterial catheter, endotracheal tube, nasogastric tube and urinary catheter that are similar to those reported in previous studies. We could not find studies that analyzed the ACR for thoracic, abdominal, intraventricular brain and cardiac surgical drains, but we believe that our rates are acceptable. To minimize ACR, it is necessary to monitor its incidence carefully and to implement preventive measures. In our view, according to establish quality standards, findings should be reported as ACR incidence per 100 catheters and per 100 catheter-days, for all types of catheters.

Bleeding complications in association with insertion of central venous catheters are reported in 0.5 to 1.6% of cases, are rarely fatal, but sometimes require intervention. The aim of this study was to map pre-procedural variables at the insertion of a central venous catheter and to investigate whether any independent variable could be identified as an independent risk factor for bleeding complications associated with insertion of central venous catheters.

Central venous catheters (CVCs) are essential in the treatment of critically ill patients. For skilled intensive care unit (ICU) physicians, insertion of these catheters in large central veins is routine practice. Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) were used in the early phase of intensive care as a surrogate for centrally inserted lines by less experienced physicians and in some departments (for example, hematology) with very specifi c patient categories. With the development of the ICU, peripherally inserted lines have been abandoned for more than two decades, at least in our center. Many bleeding and more serious local complications occurred. In more skilled hands, these lines were also not very popular, because of spasm of the vein, a tendency to take the wrong route (to the head), and thrombosis of the vein in up to 8% of patients [1]. In a study in the previous issue of Critical Care, Pittiruti and colleagues [2] evaluated 89 patients in whom ultrasound-guided insertion of multi-lumen CVCs in the deep veins of the upper mid arm (PICC) was performed. Besides 13 minor complications at insertion and two cases of sympto matic thrombosis (however, not routinely screened for), few complications occurred, and the authors conclude that PICC can be successfully used in most ICU patients. Before we advocate its routine use in the ICU, we need more and better studies. PICCs cannot compare with the historical experience with centrally inserted central catheters (CICCs). Skilled personnel, routine use of ultrasound, and insertion bundles have lowered the incidence of complications of CICCs. We would advocate a head-to-head comparison before we introduce PICC as more than a last resort.

There is still controversy regarding safe placement of central venous catheters (CVCs) as to where the tip should lie to avoid mechanical complications whilst maintaining effective use [1,2]. The carina has previously been suggested as a useful landmark to avoid intracardiac placement and its associated risks, and also that the catheter tip should lie within the superior vena cava parallel to its walls [1,2]. However, this has been disputed and there remains no consensus as to optimal tip placement. To gauge our current practice we performed a retrospective review of CVCs placed via the internal jugular or subclavian route in intensive care patients to assess where CVC tips were placed.

According to Guyton, the difference between mean systemic filling pressure (Pms) and right atrial pressure (RAP) is the venous pressure gradient (VP). This is proportional to venous return and cardiac output (CO). According to the Frank-Starling law a fluid challenge successfully increases the stroke volume if the preload increases in the ascending part of the curve. The aim of this study was to assess the significance of the analogue of the Pms (Pmsa) measured with the Navigator™ (Applied Physiology, St Leonards, Australia), the central venous pressure (CVP) (as a surrogate of RAP) and the VP during a fluid challenge.

Catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), its associated morbidity, mortality and expense are the most important adverse effect of central venous catheters (CVCs) [1]. The objective of this study of a population in whom the rate of CRBSI fell significantly over 12 years [2] was to evaluate the influence of both patient and CVC factors on CRBSI rates in patients receiving total parenteral nutrition (TPN) in this time.

The objectives of this study were to model and visualise flow in a central vein during continuous venovenous haemodiafiltration (HDF), to measure drug removal when an HDF catheter is co-located with a central venous catheter (CVC) infusing medication. Dual lumen HDF catheters are commonly used to deliver continuous venovenous renal replacement therapy in critical care. These catheters are often co-located with a CVC used to infuse drugs, with the tips lying in close approximation in a great vein. The effect of this co-location on drug delivery to the patient due to aspiration by the HDF machine may be of serious import, with the elimination of important vasoactive drugs or minimally protein-bound antibiotics just two possibilities. This effect has never been studied.

Internal and external anti-infective coating of central venous catheters (CVCs) may reduce the rate of catheter colonization (CC) and bloodstream infection (BSI) [1]. Our objective was to evaluate the efficacy of a protective nonleaching polyhexanide coating on the rate of CC and BSI in ICU settings.