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.
Summary Background Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism. However, the size of this risk relative to that associated with ...other central venous catheters (CVCs) is unknown. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the risk of venous thromboembolism associated with PICCs versus that associated with other CVCs. Methods We searched several databases, including Medline, Embase, Biosis, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Conference Papers Index, and Scopus. Additional studies were identified through hand searches of bibliographies and internet searches, and we contacted study authors to obtain unpublished data. All human studies published in full text, abstract, or poster form were eligible for inclusion. All studies were of adult patients aged at least 18 years who underwent insertion of a PICC. Studies were assessed with the Newcastle–Ottawa risk of bias scale. In studies without a comparison group, the pooled frequency of venous thromboembolism was calculated for patients receiving PICCs. In studies comparing PICCs with other CVCs, summary odds ratios (ORs) were calculated with a random effects meta-analysis. Findings Of the 533 citations identified, 64 studies (12 with a comparison group and 52 without) including 29 503 patients met the eligibility criteria. In the non-comparison studies, the weighted frequency of PICC-related deep vein thrombosis was highest in patients who were critically ill (13·91%, 95% CI 7·68–20·14) and those with cancer (6·67%, 4·69–8·64). Our meta-analysis of 11 studies comparing the risk of deep vein thrombosis related to PICCs with that related to CVCs showed that PICCs were associated with an increased risk of deep vein thrombosis (OR 2·55, 1·54–4·23, p<0·0001) but not pulmonary embolism (no events). With the baseline PICC-related deep vein thrombosis rate of 2·7% and pooled OR of 2·55, the number needed to harm relative to CVCs was 26 (95% CI 13–71). Interpretation PICCs are associated with a higher risk of deep vein thrombosis than are CVCs, especially in patients who are critically ill or those with a malignancy. The decision to insert PICCs should be guided by weighing of the risk of thrombosis against the benefit provided by these devices. Funding None.
This document provides evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on the management of adult patients with community-acquired pneumonia.
A multidisciplinary panel conducted pragmatic systematic ...reviews of the relevant research and applied Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology for clinical recommendations.
The panel addressed 16 specific areas for recommendations spanning questions of diagnostic testing, determination of site of care, selection of initial empiric antibiotic therapy, and subsequent management decisions. Although some recommendations remain unchanged from the 2007 guideline, the availability of results from new therapeutic trials and epidemiological investigations led to revised recommendations for empiric treatment strategies and additional management decisions.
The panel formulated and provided the rationale for recommendations on selected diagnostic and treatment strategies for adult patients with community-acquired pneumonia.
Antibacterials may be initiated out of concern for bacterial coinfection in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We determined prevalence and predictors of empiric antibacterial therapy and ...community-onset bacterial coinfections in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.
A randomly sampled cohort of 1705 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in 38 Michigan hospitals between 3/13/2020 and 6/18/2020. Data were collected on early (within 2 days of hospitalization) empiric antibacterial therapy and community-onset bacterial coinfections (positive microbiologic test ≤3 days). Poisson generalized estimating equation models were used to assess predictors.
Of 1705 patients with COVID-19, 56.6% were prescribed early empiric antibacterial therapy; 3.5% (59/1705) had a confirmed community-onset bacterial infection. Across hospitals, early empiric antibacterial use varied from 27% to 84%. Patients were more likely to receive early empiric antibacterial therapy if they were older (adjusted rate ratio ARR: 1.04 1.00-1.08 per 10 years); had a lower body mass index (ARR: 0.99 0.99-1.00 per kg/m2), more severe illness (eg, severe sepsis; ARR: 1.16 1.07-1.27), a lobar infiltrate (ARR: 1.21 1.04-1.42); or were admitted to a for-profit hospital (ARR: 1.30 1.15-1.47). Over time, COVID-19 test turnaround time (returned ≤1 day in March 54.2%, 461/850 vs April 85.2%, 628/737, P < .001) and empiric antibacterial use (ARR: 0.71 0.63-0.81 April vs March) decreased.
The prevalence of confirmed community-onset bacterial coinfections was low. Despite this, half of patients received early empiric antibacterial therapy. Antibacterial use varied widely by hospital. Reducing COVID-19 test turnaround time and supporting stewardship could improve antibacterial use.
Abstract Background The optimal approach to assess risk of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized medical patients is unknown. We examined how well the Caprini risk assessment model predicts venous ...thromboembolism in hospitalized medical patients. Methods Between January 2011 and March 2014, venous thromboembolism events and risk factors were collected from non-intensive care unit medical patients hospitalized in facilities across Michigan. After calculation of the Caprini score for each patient, mixed logistic spline regression was used to determine the predicted probabilities of 90-day venous thromboembolism by receipt of pharmacologic prophylaxis across the Caprini risk continuum. Results A total of 670 (1.05%) of 63,548 eligible patients experienced a venous thromboembolism event within 90 days of hospital admission. The mean Caprini risk score was 4.94 (range, 0-28). Predictive modeling revealed a consistent linear increase in venous thromboembolism for Caprini scores between 1 and 10; estimates beyond a score of 10 were unstable. Receipt of pharmacologic prophylaxis resulted in a modest decrease in venous thromboembolism risk (odds ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.99; P = .04). However, the low overall incidence of venous thromboembolism led to large estimates of numbers needed to treat to prevent a single venous thromboembolism event. A Caprini cut-point demonstrating clear benefit of prophylaxis was not detected. Conclusions Although a linear association between the Caprini risk assessment model and the risk of venous thromboembolism was noted, an extremely low incidence of venous thromboembolism events in non-intensive care unit medical patients was observed. The Caprini risk assessment model was unable to identify a subset of medical patients who benefit from pharmacologic prophylaxis.
Abstract Background Although common, little is known about factors associated with peripherally inserted central catheter-related deep vein thrombosis (PICC-DVT). To better guide clinicians, we ...performed a comprehensive literature review to summarize best practices for this condition. Methods A systematic search of the literature for studies reporting epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of PICC-DVT was conducted. Algorithms for diagnosis and management were compiled using available evidence. Results The incidence of PICC-DVT varied between 2% and 75% according to study population, testing modality and threshold for diagnosis. Studies evaluating the diagnostic utility of clinical symptoms suggested that these were neither sensitive nor specific for PICC-DVT; conversely, ultrasonography had excellent sensitivity and specificity and is recommended as the initial diagnostic test. Although more specific, contrast venography should be reserved for cases with high clinical probability and negative ultrasound findings. Centrally positioned, otherwise functional and clinically necessary PICCs need not be removed despite concomitant DVT. Anticoagulation with low-molecular-weight heparin or warfarin for at least 3 months represents the mainstay of treatment. The role of pharmacologic prophylaxis and screening for PICC-DVT in the absence of clinical symptoms is unclear at this time. Conclusions PICC-DVT is common, costly and morbid. Available evidence provides guidance for diagnosis, treatment and prevention of this condition.
Readmission penalties have catalyzed efforts to improve care transitions, but few programs have incorporated viewpoints of patients and health care professionals to determine readmission ...preventability or to prioritize opportunities for care improvement.
To determine preventability of readmissions and to use these estimates to prioritize areas for improvement.
An observational study was conducted of 1000 general medicine patients readmitted within 30 days of discharge to 12 US academic medical centers between April 1, 2012, and March 31, 2013. We surveyed patients and physicians, reviewed documentation, and performed 2-physician case review to determine preventability of and factors contributing to readmission. We used bivariable statistics to compare preventable and nonpreventable readmissions, multivariable models to identify factors associated with potential preventability, and baseline risk factor prevalence and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) to determine the proportion of readmissions affected by individual risk factors.
Likelihood that a readmission could have been prevented.
The study cohort comprised 1000 patients (median age was 55 years). Of these, 269 (26.9%) were considered potentially preventable. In multivariable models, factors most strongly associated with potential preventability included emergency department decision making regarding the readmission (aOR, 9.13; 95% CI, 5.23-15.95), failure to relay important information to outpatient health care professionals (aOR, 4.19; 95% CI, 2.17-8.09), discharge of patients too soon (aOR, 3.88; 95% CI, 2.44-6.17), and lack of discussions about care goals among patients with serious illnesses (aOR, 3.84; 95% CI, 1.39-10.64). The most common factors associated with potentially preventable readmissions included emergency department decision making (affecting 9.0%; 95% CI, 7.1%-10.3%), inability to keep appointments after discharge (affecting 8.3%; 95% CI, 4.1%-12.0%), premature discharge from the hospital (affecting 8.7%; 95% CI, 5.8%-11.3%), and patient lack of awareness of whom to contact after discharge (affecting 6.2%; 95% CI, 3.5%-8.7%).
Approximately one-quarter of readmissions are potentially preventable when assessed using multiple perspectives. High-priority areas for improvement efforts include improved communication among health care teams and between health care professionals and patients, greater attention to patients' readiness for discharge, enhanced disease monitoring, and better support for patient self-management.
To evaluate patterns and predictors of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-related occlusion.
Data from a multihospital study were used to examine factors associated with PICC occlusion. ...Occlusion was defined if documented in the medical record or when tissue plasminogen activator was administered for occlusion-related concerns. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to predict occlusion, controlling for patient-, provider-, device-, and hospital-level characteristics.
A total of 14,278 PICCs placed in 13,408 patients were included. Of these, occlusion developed in 1,716 PICCs (12%) in 1,684 patients. The most common indications for PICC insertion were intravenous antibiotic therapy (32.7%), difficult intravenous access (21.5%), and central access (13.7%). PICCs placed in the right arm had decreased odds of occlusion compared with those in the left arm (odds ratio OR = 0.82; 95% confidence interval CI = 0.72-0.94). Verification of catheter tip position following insertion was associated with reduction in occlusion (OR = 0.75; 95% CI = 0.61-0.92). Although normal saline solution or heparin flushes did not reduce occlusion, PICCs flushed with normal saline solution and "locked" with heparin were less likely to become occluded (OR = 0.54; 95% CI = 0.33-0.88). Compared with single-lumen devices, double- and triple-lumen PICCs were associated with greater incidences of occlusion (double, OR = 3.07; 95% CI = 2.56-3.67; triple, OR = 3.72; 95% CI = 2.92-4.74). Catheter tip malposition was also associated with occlusion (OR = 1.46; 95% CI = 1.14-1.87).
Several patient, provider, and device characteristics appear associated with PICC occlusion. Interventions targeting these factors may prove valuable in reducing this complication.
PDF
