Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

Central lines are frequently used in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). Incorrectly positioned central lines are associated with increased complications. Central line malposition has been related to prematurity, catheter size, and small-for-gestation-age status. The impact of provider experience on proper central line positioning has not been established.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, neonates had central lines placed within the first 10 days of life. Central lines included umbilical artery catheters (UAC), umbilical vein catheters (UVC), and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC). Central line malposition was confirmed with thoracoabdominal radiography. Different providers with various months/years of experience were coded. Logistic regression models were fit to adjust for potential confounders of the association of years of experience with line malposition.

Results

Between 2019 and 2021, 301 neonates had 616 central lines. 66% (405/616) of all central lines were malpositioned. The median years of providers’ experience who placed malpositioned and properly positioned lines were 1.93 (interquartile range [IQR]: 1.03–5.48) years and 2.17 (IQR: 1.38–4.85) years, respectively (P = .78). The distribution of malposition lines was UVC 49% (199/405), UAC 20.5% (83/405), and PICC 30.5% (123/405). Only UVC was significantly associated with malposition (P = .002).

Conclusions

Malposition of central lines frequently occurred in the NICU and was associated with UVC placement, irrespective of the provider’s experience who accessed it. Anatomical variations in neonates with different gestational ages and birth weights may mean that current methods to estimate insertion depth can be misleading. Future interventions should involve novel techniques of confirming real-time positioning during insertion rather than focusing on placement calculations.

Keywords

Provider catheter central line experience malposition

Introduction and Background

Central lines are common in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU); they are placed in as many as 22% of NICU admissions.¹ Central lines are used to administer medications, assess hemodynamic status, infuse fluids, and provide parenteral nutrition.^1–3 Commonly used central lines in the NICU include umbilical artery catheters (UAC), umbilical vein catheters (UVC), and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC). Central line complications such as perforation and hemorrhage, cardiac tamponade, and pseudoaneurysm, among others, are rare but may be life-threatening.^{1, 4, 5} Multiple UVC placement attempts may result in hepatic infarction, hematoma, or portal venous gas.¹ Complications are more common in malpositioned central lines, including non-centrally positioned PICC tips and those lines that migrate from their correct position.^6–14

The depth of central line catheters is estimated with formulas using neonatal measurements. For example, UAC and UVC placement formulas are based on the patient’s length and weight.^{12, 15, 16} PICC insertion formula depends on external measurements or equations using body weight or length.¹³ However, the accuracy of these methods is limited, particularly in premature, large for gestational age (LGA) and small for gestational age (SGA) neonates.¹⁵ Routinely, central line position is confirmed with thoracoabdominal radiography after placement.

There are known clinical and demographic risk factors associated with malpositioned central lines. Prematurity and very low birth weight (VLBW) neonates are at increased risk of malpositioned UACs and UVCs.^{7, 9, 12} Specifically, extremely low birth weight (ELBW) neonates are likelier to have UVC positioned in the heart—right atrium, foramen ovale, and left atrium.^{11, 17} Larger catheters and escalation of respiratory support required by the neonate are also risk factors for malpositioning,⁹ in contrast to sex and central line indication.^{3, 9}

It is unclear how provider experience impacts central line malpositioning. In the adult literature, the complication rate for subclavian catheters ranges from increased to unchanged based on resident experience.^{18, 19} While experienced clinicians are assumed to be more likely to place catheters appropriately among neonates,⁹ there is no evidence that more experienced neonatologists have lower malposition rates.⁷ In our institution, NICU providers have variable expertise and include pediatric residents, Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine fellows, nurse practitioners (NPs), physician assistants (PAs), and neonatology attending physicians. We hypothesized that central line malposition would be lower among providers with more experience working in the NICU. This study aimed to find the association between malpositioned central lines and provider experience.

Materials and Methods

Design, Setting, and Timeframe

This retrospective analysis was conducted in an urban, academic, quaternary referral center level-IV NICU from February 2019 to January 2021. This hospital had an average of 3,400 deliveries per year in the above specified time period.

We included all neonates admitted to the NICU who required central line placement within the first 10 days of life. The study cohort consisted of infants who had central lines (UVC, UAC, and PICC) placed within the first postnatal days. Patients transferred from another facility with a central line already in place were excluded. A central line was defined as a UAC, a UVC, or a PICC. The data were curated from our electronic health records (EPIC) by one author (ML). Removal of all patient identifiers occurred before analysis. There was no direct patient or public involvement. The Institutional Review Board and the Ethics Committee approved the study design. Informed written parental consent was waived as this was a retrospective study.

Predictor/Outcome Variables

Patient variables included demographic data such as gestational age (GA), sex, birth weight (BW), length, and BW percentiles based on Fenton growth charts.²⁰ Neonates were considered SGA if their BW was less than the 10th percentile for GA and sex and LGA if their BW was greater than the 90th percentile for GA and sex. Other variables collected were postmenstrual age (PMA), postnatal age, length, and weight at the time of catheter insertion.

Catheter-related characteristics included the number of lumens and catheter size. We recorded provider type (NPs, PAs, Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine fellows, and Pediatrics residents) and years of experience in the NICU. Residents’ experience was coded using months spent in the NICU during their Neonatology rotations. For fellows in Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, the experience was the difference between the procedure date and the fellowship program starting date, plus the three months they spent in the NICU during their pediatric residency. Among NPs and PAs, provider experience was quantified in years by subtracting the procedure and hire dates. If multiple providers were involved in central line placement, the provider with the lowest experience level was coded.

The insertion depth for all UAC and UVC insertions was calculated using Shukla and Ferrara’s method.¹⁵ For most PICC insertion depth calculations, external measurements such as the distance from the insertion site to the expected correctly positioned catheter tip were used.¹³ The central line tip location was confirmed by plain radiography. Correctly placed UACs terminated between T6 and T9 vertebral bodies. The optimal placement of a UVC ended at the IVC-RA junction, roughly at the diaphragm level. PICC was defined as central and correctly positioned if visualized on the superior vena cava, preferably on the (SVC)-RA junction when placed in the upper limbs or on the IVC length when placed in the lower limbs. Neonates with multiple central lines were evaluated for the initial positioning of each central line. The radiologist’s official report was considered the standard for correct position determination. Infant outcome, death or discharge from the NICU, was also coded.

Statistical Analysis

The initial expected sample size was 500 observations. Assuming 50% had central lines placed by experienced providers²¹ and the malposition rate in this group around 10%, the study would have 80% power with a two-sided Type 1 error rate of 5% in a logistic regression analysis to detect an increase in the malposition rate to 20.2% when less experienced providers placed lines, with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.3.⁹ T-tests or Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare continuous variables between central line malposition/no malposition groups, and chi-square tests were used to compare categorical variables. Logistic regression models were fit to adjust for potential confounders associated with years of NICU experience and central line malposition. The data were coded and analyzed using the statistical analysis software SAS version 9.4. A two-sided P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Between 2019 and 2021, 301 neonates had 616 central lines in the NICU. Most neonates were male, 53% (326/616), and the mean BW was 1504 gm. The GA ranged from 23 to 41 weeks, with a mean of 30 weeks. Provider experience was broad, with a median of two years, ranging from two months to 28 years. Baseline characteristics separated by position (malpositioned/correctly positioned) are shown in Table 1. Of all central lines, 66% (405/616) were malpositioned as per the first radiography. The median years of providers experience who placed malpositioned and properly positioned lines were 1.93 (interquartile range [IQR]: 1.03–5.48) years and 2.17 (IQR: 1.38–4.85) years, respectively (P = .78; Table 2).

Table 1.

Baseline Characteristics.

Baseline Characteristics	Malpositioned Lines (n = 405)	Correctly Positioned Lines (n = 211)
Male, n (%)	215 (53)	111 (53)
Birth weight (grams), mean (range)	1517.3 (455–4590)	1468.6 (470–4570)
SGA, n (%)	75 (18.5)	40 (19)
AGA, n (%)	302 (74.6)	160 (75.8)
LGA, n (%)	28 (6.9)	11 (5.2)
Gestational age (weeks), mean (range)	30 (23–41)	30 (23–41)
Provider experience (years), median (range)	1.93 (0.1–28)	2.17 (0.1–28)
NP/PA, n (%)	216 (53.3)	103 (48.8)
Fellow, n (%)	179 (44)	104 (49)
Resident, n (%)	10 (2.5)	4 (2)
UVC, n (%)	199 (49)	77 (36)
UAC, n (%)	83 (20.5)	67 (32)
PICC, n (%)	123 (30.5)	67 (32)

Abbreviations: AGA - appropriate for gestational age; LGA - large for gestational age; NP - nurse practitioner; PA - physician assistant; PICC - peripherally inserted central catheter; SGA - small for gestational age; UAC - umbilical arterial catheter; UVC - umbilical venous catheter.

Table 2.

Bivariate Analysis of Central Line Malposition.

	Central Line Malposition
Variable	Central Line Malposition	Yes (n = 405)	No (n = 211)	p Value
Type of provider, n (%)			.29
NP/PA	216 (53.3)	103 (48.8)
Resident/Fellow	189 (46.7)	108 (51.2)
Central line type, n (%)			.002
UVC	199 (49)	77 (36)
UAC	83 (20)	67 (32)
PICC	123 (30)	67 (32)
Gestational age (weeks), mean (SD)	30 (5.00)	30 (4.67)	.98
Classification based on weight, n (%)			.71
SGA	75 (18.5)	40 (19)
AGA	302 (74.6)	160 (75.8)
LGA	28 (6.9)	11 (5.2)
Years of experience, median (IQR)	1.93 (1.03–5.48)	2.17 (1.38–4.85)	.78
Weight (g), mean (SD)	1517.32 (1022.4)	1468.6 (914.4)	.56
Sex, n (%)			.91
Male	215 (53)	111 (53)
Female	190 (47)	100 (47)
Size of catheter (Fr), median (IQR)	3.5 (2.0–5.0)	3.5 (2.0–5.0)	.11

Abbreviations: AGA - appropriate for gestational age; Fr - French size (unit of measure for the catheter diameter); IQR - interquartile range; LGA - large for gestational age; NP - nurse practitioner; PA - physician assistant; PICC - peripherally inserted central catheter; SD - standard deviation; SGA - small for gestational age; UAC - umbilical arterial catheter; UVC - umbilical venous catheter.

Note: Bold values shows statistically significant values at p value < .05.

The distribution of malpositioned lines was UVC 49% (199/405), UAC 20.5% (83/405), and PICC 30.5% (123/405). Among the correctly positioned lines, UVC corresponded to 36% (77/211), followed by UAC 32% (67/211) and PICC 32% (67/211), with a total of 34% (211/616). When malpositioned were compared to correctly positioned central lines, only central line type was significantly associated with malposition (P = .002).

The initial position of the central line was adjusted to a correct position in 81% (327/405) of neonates, and the catheter was removed in 13% (52/405) of them. Some catheters were kept in the same position (6%–26/405), even if not centrally placed, due to the need for medications and fluids and no other intravenous access. On further analysis, evaluating lines by type, among all placed UVCs, 72% (199/276) were malpositioned on the first radiography, followed by PICCs with 65% (123/190) and UACs with 55% (83/150).

Sex, GA, catheter size, BW, length, provider type, and classification based on weight for GA (e.g., SGA, AGA, or LGA) were not associated with central line malposition. In addition, logistic regression analysis did not show an independent association of years of experience with central line malposition after adjustment for potential confounders (OR = 1.00; 95% CI: 0.97–1.04; P = .81; Table 3), whereas central line type remained a significant predictor of central line malposition (UAC vs. UVC: OR = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.31–0.71; P = .0004). Though severe central line complications were rare, complications were seen with 4.7% (29/616) of central lines (Table 4). Of the 301 neonates, 6% (19/301) died in the NICU. None of the deaths was related to catheter insertion or complications.

Table 3.

Multivariable Logistic Regression Analysis of Central Line Malposition.

Predictor Variable		Odds Ratio	95% CI	p Value
Type of provider	NP/PA vs. Resident/Fellow	1.16	0.79–1.69	.45
Gestational age (weeks)		0.997	0.963–1.033	.88
Classification based on weight	SGA vs. AGA	0.99	0.64–1.53	.97
Classification based on weight	LGA vs. AGA	1.34	0.65–2.78	.43
Years of experience		1.00	0.97–1.04	.81
Central line type	UAC vs. UVC	0.47	0.31–0.71	.0004
Central line type	PICC vs. UVC	0.68	0.45–1.02	.06

Note: Bold values shows statistically significant values at p value < .05.

Table 4.

Overall Complications (n = 616).

Type of Complication	n	%
Air in the liver	8	1.3
Occlusion	5	0.8
Wrong vessel	3	0.5
Abnormal perfusion	3	0.5
Leakage	3	0.5
Limb swelling	3	0.5
Hematoma in the liver	1	0.1
Infection	1	0.1
Pressure ulcer	1	0.1
Thrombus	1	0.1
Total	29	4.7

Discussion

In this study, 66% of central lines were malpositioned on the first radiograph. The most common malpositioned central line was the UVC, accounting for 49% of the malpositioned central lines. Among all factors analyzed, only central line type was related to malposition. Provider experience was not associated with central line malpositioning.

Providers with a broad range of experience and levels of training comprise the NICU team.¹⁸ This diverse group was analyzed into two categories: type of provider and duration of experience as a NICU clinician. Despite including a range of providers with an experience span, neither provider type nor years spent in the NICU impacted the proper catheter position, similar to prior data about malpositioned UVCs.^{9, 21} UVC catheter was the only factor associated with incorrect catheter placement. In practice, inserting a UVC is a blind procedure where the catheter follows the pathway of least resistance and could enter a collateral route into the portal system, an intrahepatic branch of the portal vein, or a hepatic vein or if not sufficiently advanced, may terminate in the umbilical vein, umbilical recess, or ductus venosus.^{22, 23}

As previously published, central line malposition is common among neonates admitted to the NICU. In previous reports, up to 70% of central lines were malpositioned, and UACs were malpositioned 50% of the time.^{16, 24, 25} Another study showed that in over one-third of the UVC cohort, the line was not centrally placed on the first attempt.⁹ A recent publication using Shukla and Ferrara’s method in most insertions demonstrated better-positioned lines with a 71% successful rate.²¹ Shukla and Ferrara’s formulas¹⁵ are routinely used at our NICU for UVC and UAC placement. Still, recently revised weight-based formulas²⁶ are available based on the provider’s preference. Surface anatomy measurements are used for most PICC insertions. New evidence suggests that successful PICC placement using formulas based on the neonate’s weight and/or length may be more accurate for PICCs.¹³

In our cohort, GA and SGA or LGA status were not associated with malposition of the catheters. Soonsawad et al. did not find a difference in malposition for the more premature neonates either. In a multicenter observational study, GA and BW did not affect the procedure’s success.^{9, 21} In previous research, SGA, LGA, premature, VLBW, and ELBW neonates had increased rates of malpositioned UACs and UVCs, as formulas do not accurately calculate insertion depth for these smaller neonates.^{7, 9, 11, 17}

We acknowledge the weaknesses of this retrospective single-center study that relied on provider charting and radiographic images. Our limitations included incomplete electronic health records review (e.g., the provider not describing multiple attempts or adjustments made before the first radiography). We understand that using years of experience could fail to represent the exact number of procedures a specific provider performs while working in the NICU. However, it gives a reasonable estimate of familiarity with catheter insertion. The findings represent the academic setting where the research was performed and may not be generalizable to other institutions. Our strengths are related to the sample size with a diverse patient and provider population. We analyzed malpositioned lines using a broad range of provider types and experiences. Finally, the results address a common clinical question: reasons for malpositioned catheters in the NICU.

Conclusions

Central line malposition frequently occurred in the NICU and was most often associated with UVC placement, irrespective of the provider’s experience who accessed it. Anatomical variations in neonates with different GAs and BWs may mean that current methods to estimate insertion depth can be misleading. Future interventions should involve novel techniques of confirming real-time positioning during insertion, such as point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS), rather than focusing on placement calculations.

Footnotes

Abbreviations

BW: Birth weight

ELBW: Extremely low birth weight

Fr: French size (unit of measure for the catheter diameter)

GA: Gestational age

IQR: interquartile range

IVC: Inferior vena cava

LGA: Large for gestational age

NICU: Neonatal intensive care unit

NP: Nurse practitioner

OR: Odds ratio

PA: Physician Assistant

PGY: Postgraduate year

PICC: Peripherally inserted central catheter

PMA: Postmenstrual age

POCUS: Point-of-care ultrasound

RA: Right atrium

SGA: Small for gestational age

SVC: Superior vena cava

UAC: Umbilical artery catheter

UVC: Umbilical vein catheter

VLBW: Very low birth weight

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Approval

The Albert Einstein School of Medicine Institutional Review Board approved the study design.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Informed Consent

Informed written parental consent was waived as this was a retrospective study.

ORCID iD

Michelle H. Lucena

References

Mutlu

, Aslan

, Kul

, Yilmaz

Umbilical venous catheter complications in newborns: a 6-year single-center experience. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med . 2016;29(17):2817–2822. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2015.1105952

Breschan

, Graf

, Jost

, . A retrospective analysis of the clinical effectiveness of supraclavicular, ultrasound-guided brachiocephalic vein cannulations in preterm infants. Anesthesiology . 2018;128(1):38–43. doi: 10.1097/aln.0000000000001871

Haase

, Hein

, Thale

, Vilser

, Merkel

Umbilical venous catheters—analysis of malpositioning over a 10-year period. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol . 2011;215(1):18–22. Nabelvenenkatheter - Retrospektive Analyse der Nabelvenenkatheterlagen uber einen 10-Jahres-Zeitraum. doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1271739

Kim

, Lee

, Kim

, Lee

, Lim

, Kim

HS.

Does umbilical vein catheterization lead to portal venous thrombosis? Prospective US evaluation in 100 neonates. Radiology . 2001;219(3):645–650. doi: 10.1148/radiology.219.3.r01jn17645

Wyers

, McAlister

WH.

Umbilical artery catheter use complicated by pseudoaneurysm of the aorta. Pediatr Radiol . 2002;32(3):199–201. doi: 10.1007/s00247-001-0631-1

Goh

SSM

, Kan

, Bharadwaj

, Poon

WB.

A review of umbilical venous catheter-related complications at a tertiary neonatal unit in Singapore. Singapore Med J . 2021;62(1):29–33. doi: 10.11622/smedj.2019140

Finn

, Kinoshita

, Livingstone

, Dempsey

EM.

Optimal line and tube placement in very preterm neonates: an audit of practice. Children (Basel) . 2017;4(11):99. doi: 10.3390/children4110099

Plooij-Lusthusz

, van Vreeswijk

, van Stuijvenberg

, Bos

, Kooi

EMW.

Migration of umbilical venous catheters. Am J Perinatol . 2019;36(13):1377–1381. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1677016

Soonsawad

, Kieran

, Ting

, AlonsoPrieto

, Panczuk

JK.

Factors associated with umbilical venous catheter malposition in newborns: a tertiary center experience. Am J Perinatol . 2022;39(16):1805–1811. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1726385

10.

El Ters

, Claassen

, Lancaster

, . Central versus low-lying umbilical venous catheters: a multicenter study of practices and complications. Am J Perinatol . 2019;36(11):1198–1204. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1676482

11.

Ades

, Sable

, Cummings

, Cross

, Markle

, Martin

Echocardiographic evaluation of umbilical venous catheter placement. J Perinatol . 2003;23(1):24–28. doi: 10.1038/sj.jp.7210851

12.

Gupta

, Peesay

, Ramasethu

Simple measurements to place umbilical catheters using surface anatomy. J Perinatol . 2015;35(7):476–480. doi: 10.1038/jp.2014.239

13.

Chen

, Ou-Yang

, Chen

, . The equations of the inserted length of percutaneous central venous catheters on neonates in NICU. Pediatr Neonatol . 2019;60(3):305–310. doi: 10.1016/j.pedneo.2018.07.011

14.

O’Malley

, Sriram

, White

, Polinski

, Seng

, Schreiber

MD.

Feasibility and outcomes associated with the use of 2.6-Fr Double-Lumen PICCs in neonates. Adv Neonatal Care . 2019;19(2):E3–E8. doi: 10.1097/ANC.0000000000000570

15.

Shukla

, Ferrara

Rapid estimation of insertional length of umbilical catheters in newborns. Am J Dis Child . 1986;140(8):786–788. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.1986.02140220068034

16.

Kieran

, Laffan

, O’Donnell

CP.

Estimating umbilical catheter insertion depth in newborns using weight or body measurement: a randomised trial. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed . 2016;101(1):F10–F15. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2014-307668

17.

Harabor

, Soraisham

Rates of intracardiac umbilical venous catheter placement in neonates. J Ultrasound Med . 2014;33(9):1557–1561. doi: 10.7863/ultra.33.9.1557

18.

Fares

, Block

, Feldman

SD.

Improved house staff results with subclavian cannulation. Am Surg . 1986;52(2):108–111.

19.

Mansfield

, Hohn

, Fornage

, Gregurich

, Ota

DM.

Complications and failures of subclavian-vein catheterization. N Engl J Med . 1994;331(26):1735–1738. doi: 10.1056/nejm199412293312602

20.

Fenton

, Kim

JH.

A systematic review and meta-analysis to revise the Fenton growth chart for preterm infants. BMC Pediatr . 2013;13:59. doi: 10.1186/1471-2431-13-59

21.

Patel

, Shannon

, Eldridge

, . Understanding umbilical venous catheter insertion practices through a prospective multicenter observational study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med . 2022;35(25):5043–5048. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2021.1874908

22.

D’Andrea

, Prontera

, Rubortone

, . Umbilical venous catheter update: a narrative review including ultrasound and training. Front Pediatr . 2021;9:774705. doi: 10.3389/fped.2021.774705

23.

Liszewski

, Daltro

, Lee

EY.

Back to fundamentals: radiographic evaluation of thoracic lines and tubes in children. AJR Am J Roentgenol . 2019;212(5):988–996. doi: 10.2214/AJR.18.20704

24.

Dunn

PM.

Localization of the umbilical catheter by post-mortem measurement. Arch Dis Child . 1966;41(215):69–75. doi: 10.1136/adc.41.215.69

25.

Pennaforte

, Klosowski

, Alexandre

, Ghesquière

, Rakza

, Storme

Increased success rate in umbilical venous catheter positioning by posterior liver mobilization. Arch Pediatr . 2010;17(10):1440–1444. Intérêt du refoulement hépatique pour repositionner un cathéter veineux ombilical « sous-hépatique » dans la veine cave inférieure. doi: 10.1016/j.arcped.2010.03.008

26.

Verheij

, te Pas

, Smits-Wintjens

, Šràmek

, Walther

, Lopriore

Revised formula to determine the insertion length of umbilical vein catheters. Eur J Pediatr . 2013;172(8):1011–1015. doi: 10.1007/s00431-013-1981-z

The Impact of Provider Experience on Central Line Malposition

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Introduction and Background

Materials and Methods

Design, Setting, and Timeframe

Predictor/Outcome Variables

Statistical Analysis

Results

Baseline Characteristics.

Bivariate Analysis of Central Line Malposition.

Multivariable Logistic Regression Analysis of Central Line Malposition.

Overall Complications (n = 616).

Discussion

Conclusions

Footnotes

Abbreviations

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Ethical Approval

Funding

Informed Consent

ORCID iD

References