Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

Several interventional procedures show a dependency on fluoroscopy times (FT) and level of training. Furthermore, FT and dose area products (DAP) vary depending on access site and target vessel for chest port implantations, but not for other thoracic interventions such as percutaneous coronary interventions.

Purpose

To evaluate the influence of the combination of venous access site and level of training on FTs and DAPs during peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) implantations in a large cohort of patients.

Material and Methods

In this retrospective study, PICC implantations of 681 consecutive patients (385 women, 296 men; mean age = 55.0 ± 16.7 years) were analyzed. Two groups of junior (< 50 interventions) and senior (≥ 50 implantations) radiologists were investigated in respect to FT and DAP during PICC placement procedures. Statistical analysis included the Mann–Whitney U test and the Kruskal–Wallis test. P values < 0.05 were considered significant.

Results

Senior radiologists required significantly less FT (senior = 0.43 s, junior = 0.53 s, P = 0.041), but there was no significant difference in DAPs (senior = 56.3 µGy*m², junior = 60.6 µGy*m², P = 0.151). PICC implantations through the left side resulted in a significant reduction of the median FT by 60.9% (left = 0.45 s, right = 1.15 s, P = 0.010).

Conclusion

Due to considerable dose reduction, the left-sided puncture, especially via the basilic and brachial veins, performed by well-trained interventional radiologists seem to be the preferable approach for PICCs.

Keywords

Peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)fluoroscopy time dose area product radiation dose level of training

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Chopra

Flanders

Saint

et al.

The Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC): results from a multispecialty panel using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. Ann Inter Med 2015; 163: S1–40.

Indrajit

Sivasankar

D’Souza

et al.

Pressure injectors for radiologists: A review and what is new. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2015; 25: 2–10.

Refaei

Fernandes

Brandwein

et al.

Incidence of catheter-related thrombosis in acute leukemia patients: a comparative, retrospective study of the safety of peripherally inserted vs. centrally inserted central venous catheters. Ann Hematol 2016; 95: 2057–2064.

Jauch

Schregel

Stanga

et al.

Access technique and its problems in parenteral nutrition - Guidelines on Parenteral Nutrition, Chapter 9. Ger Med Sci 2009; 7: Doc19–Doc19.

Delarbre

Dabadie

Stremler-Lebel

et al.

Introduction of the use of a pediatric PICC line in a French University Hospital: review of the first 91 procedures. Diagn Interv Imaging 2014; 95: 277–281.

Cunningham

Ravikumar

. A review of peripherally inserted central venous catheters in oncology patients. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 1995; 4: 429–441.

Forssmann

. [Die Sondierung des Rechten Herzens]. Klinische Wochenschrift 1929; 8: 2085–2087.

Gebauer

. [Venöse Zugänge – Implantation und Komplikationsmanagement]. Intervent Radiol Scan 2015; 03: 51–73.

Ryder

. Peripheral access options. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 1995; 4: 395–427.

10.

Baldinelli

Capozzoli

Pedrazzoli

et al.

Evaluation of the correct position of peripherally inserted central catheters: anatomical landmark vs. electrocardiographic technique. J Vasc Access 2015; 16: 394–398.

11.

Gebauer

Teichgraber

Podrabsky

et al.

[Ultrasound- and fluoroscopy-guided implantation of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs)]. Rofo 2004; 176: 386–391.

12.

Schueler

Vrieze

Bjarnason

et al.

An investigation of operator exposure in interventional radiology. Radiographics 2006; 26: 1533–1541.

13.

Lim

Khawaja

Nimkin

et al.

Relationship between radiologist training level and fluoroscopy time for voiding cystourethrography. Am J Roentgenol 2013; 200: 645–651.

14.

Duszak

Jr McGinnis

et al.

Increased fluoroscopy time for central venous catheter placement by radiology residents versus staff radiologists. J Am Coll Radiol 2013; 10: 518–522.

15.

Plumhans

Mahnken

Ocklenburg

et al.

Jugular versus subclavian totally implantable access ports: catheter position, complications and intrainterventional pain perception. Eur J Radiol 2011; 79: 338–342.

16.

Kuipers

Delewi

Velders

et al.

Radiation exposure during percutaneous coronary interventions and coronary angiograms performed by the radial compared with the femoral route. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2012; 5: 752–757.

17.

Sacks

McClenny

Cardella

et al.

Society of Interventional Radiology clinical practice guidelines. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2003; 14: S199–202.

18.

Storm

Miller

Hoover

et al.

Radiation doses from venous access procedures. Radiology 2006; 238: 1044–1050.

19.

Moureau

Poole

Murdock

et al.

Central venous catheters in home infusion care: outcomes analysis in 50,470 patients. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2002; 13: 1009–1016.

20.

Mollee

Jones

Stackelroth

et al.

Catheter-associated bloodstream infection incidence and risk factors in adults with cancer: a prospective cohort study. J Hosp Infect 2011; 78: 26–30.

21.

Sperry

Roskos

Oskoui

. The effect of laterality on venous thromboembolism formation after peripherally inserted central catheter placement. J Vasc Access 2012; 13: 91–95.

22.

Liem

Yanit

Moseley

et al.

Peripherally inserted central catheter usage patterns and associated symptomatic upper extremity venous thrombosis. J Vasc Surg 2012; 55: 761–767.

23.

Wang

Guo

Jiang

et al.

Factors influencing intracavitary electrocardiographic p-wave changes during central venous catheter placement. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0124846–e0124846.

24.

Schummer

Paxian

et al.

[Extravasal position of central venous catheters despite unsuspicious ECG-guidance]. Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther 2005; 40: 91–96.

25.

Miller

Kwon

Bonavia

. Reference levels for patient radiation doses in interventional radiology: proposed initial values for U.S. practice. Radiology 2009; 253: 753–764.

Peripherally inserted central catheters: dependency of radiation exposure from puncture site and level of training

Abstract

Background

Purpose

Material and Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References