Search

Background: Low birth-weight infants' survival continues to improve and there is increased need to provide secure vascular access. This study examines safety of larger peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) that offer greater utility.Purpose: To determine feasibility of 2.6-French (Fr) double-lumen PICCs in newborns and compare noninfectious complications such as thrombus formation, catheter breakage, infiltration, and accidental dislodgment and central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rate with that of newborn infants treated with 1.9-Fr single- and double-lumen PICCs.Methods: Infants requiring PICCs were admitted in our 69-bed level IV neonatal intensive care unit from September 2006 to May 2015. Two distinct groups were compared: the 1.9-Fr-(single-lumen [n = 105] and double-lumen [n = 27])-and 2.6-Fr double-lumen PICCs (n = 111). Data obtained included birth weight and weight at insertion, gestational age at birth and corrected gestation age at insertion, indication, catheter days, indication for removal, and complications: noninfectious and infectious. Univariate and multivariate statistical analysis evaluated data.Results: There were no differences regarding gestational age at birth and insertion and indications for placement of 2.6-Fr double-lumen (n =111) and 1.9-Fr both single- and double-lumen (n = 132) PICCs. The same was noted between the groups' complications. Noninfectious complications were more common in PICCs with peripheral tip location in all groups.Implications For Practice: Consider use of 2.6-Fr PICCs in a neonatal intensive care unit when the utility of blood administration and sampling is required.Implications For Research: Examine line migration and CLABSI associated with sampling and blood administration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: The placement of a peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC) is an essential procedure in neonatal intensive care units (NICU). The aim of this study was to determine the risk of PICC complications in NICU, and further identify the effects of PICC complications on body weight gain in premature infants.Methods and Study Design: A total of 304 premature infants who had a PICC inserted in NICU were enrolled in this study. The weight-for-age z-score (WAZ) at the time of PICC insertion and removal were calculated, and changes of WAZ in different groups were compared using a t-test. Risk factors for PICC complications were assessed using the chi-squared test and multiple logistic regression analysis.Results: Thirty (9.97%) PICCs were removed due to complications. Of them, 14 PICCs were removed because of non-infectious complications and 16 PICCs were removed for central-line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs). Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that premature infants with birth weight >1,500 g were less likely to have PICC complications than infants with birth weight <=1,500 g (OR, 0.29; 95% CI: 0.10-0.82; p=0.020). In addition, the changes in WAZ between PICC insertion and removal were significantly different in both infectious (-0.144±0.122, p<0.005) and non-infectious (-0.65±0.528, p<0.001) complications groups, compared with the no complications group (0.291±0.552).Conclusions: Findings from this study suggest that birth weight is a risk factor for PICC-associated complications in the NICU, and both infectious and non-infectious PICC complications are associated with poor body weight gain in premature infants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To provide evidence for selecting an appropriate peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) insertion technique by comparing the insertion success rate and the incidence of complications with 3 PICC insertion techniques. Methods: We assigned enrolled patients to 3 groups according to the insertion technique selected by the individual patient: Group A, usual insertion technique (traditional, blind insertion); Group B, Modified Seldinger Technique (MST) insertion without ultrasound guidance; and group C, ultrasound-guided MST insertion. We compared the insertion success rate and the incidence of complications among these groups. Results: When comparing these 3 PICC insertion techniques, no significant difference was seen with respect to the insertion success rate and the incidence of catheter malposition (P > 0.05), although a significant difference existed in the incidence of bleeding at the insertion site after the PICC procedure (P < 0.05), with the ultrasound-guided MST insertion technique superior to the other 2 techniques; the incidence of mechanical phlebitis and catheter occlusion during the use of PICC had no significant difference among the 3 groups (P > 0.05); but a significant difference was seen in the incidence of thrombosis and catheter-related infections (P < 0.05), with a lower incidence in the ultrasound-guided MST insertion group than that in the other 2 groups. Conclusions: Ultrasound-guided MST insertion technique may address the problems occurring in patients with poor vascular access during the PICC procedure, whereas the usual insertion technique is the best choice for patients with good vascular access and poor economic status. Therefore, the selection of an appropriate insertion technique should be based on the economic and vascular status of the individual patient in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]