Subcutaneously anchored securement for peripherally inserted central catheters: Immediate,early,and late complications

Abstract

Background:

An adequate stabilization of a vascular device is an important part of insertion bundles and is an effective strategy in reducing complications. Dislodgment has a relevant clinical impact and an increase in healthcare costs.

Method:

We have retrospectively investigated the safety and efficacy of Subcutaneously Anchored Securement (SAS) for Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters (PICC) in cancer patients.

Results:

We analyzed 639 patients who had a PICC inserted and secured with SAS, over the past 3 years (2018–2020). No immediate complications during SAS placement were reported. In the first 24–48 h, a slight local ecchymosis was reported in 24 cases with rapid spontaneous resolution. No cases of bleeding or hematoma of the exit site were reported. The total number of catheter days was 93078. Dislodgment occurred only in seven cases (1.1%). In 16 patients, the PICC was removed because of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI): the overall incidence of CRBSI was 0.17 per 1000 catheter days. Symptomatic venous thrombosis was documented in 12 patients (1.9%) and treated with low molecular weight heparin without PICC removal. We had no cases of irreversible lumen occlusion. In 17 patients, local discomfort—including device-related pressure ulcers and painful inflammation—was reported: these cases were treated without SAS removal or PICC removal.

Conclusion:

In this retrospective analysis, subcutaneously anchored securement of PICCs was a safe and effective strategy for reducing the risk of dislodgment.

Keywords

Oncology access techniques and procedures subcutaneously anchored securement peripherally inserted central catheters biomaterials

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Gorski

Hadaway

Hagle

, et al. Infusion therapy standards of practice. J Infus Nurs 2021; 44(1S Suppl 1): S1–S224.

Leroyer

Lashéras

Marie

, et al. Prospective follow-up of complications related to peripherally inserted central catheters. Med Mal Infect 2013; 43(8): 350–355.

Gibson

Conolly

Moineddin

, et al. Peripherally inserted central catheters: use at a tertiary care pediatric center. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2013; 24(9): 1323–1331.

Bellesi

Chiusolo

De Pascale

, et al. Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) in the management of oncohematological patients submitted to autologous stem cell transplantation. Support Care Cancer 2013; 21(2): 531–535.

Paquet

Boucher

Valenti

, et al. Impact of arm selection on the incidence of PICC complications: results of a randomized controlled trial. J Vasc Access 2017; 18(5): 408–414.

Moureau

Impact and safety associated with accidental dislodgement of vascular access devices: a survey of professions, settings, and devices. J Assoc Vasc Access 2018; 23(4): 203–215.

Yamamoto

Solomon

Soulen

, et al. Sutureless securement device reduces complications of peripherally inserted central venous catheters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2002; 13(1): 77–81.

McParlan

Edgar

Gault

, et al. Intravascular catheter migration: a cross-sectional and health-economic comparison of adhesive and subcutaneous engineered stabilisation devices for intravascular device securement. J Vasc Access 2020; 21(1): 33–38.

McNichol

Lund

Rosen

, et al. Medical adhesives and patient safety: state of the science: consensus statements for the assessment, prevention, and treatment of adhesive-related skin injuries. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2013; 40(4): 365–380.

10.

Pinelli

Pittiruti

Van Boxtel

, et al. GAVeCeLT-WoCoVA consensus on subcutaneously anchored securement devices for the securement of venous catheters: current evidence and recommendations for future research. J Vasc Access. Epub ahead of print 2 July 2020. DOI: 10.1177/1129729820924568.

11.

Emoli

Cappuccio

Marche

, et al. The ISP (Safe Insertion of PICCs) protocol: a bundle of 8 recommendations to minimize the complications related to the peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC). Assist Inferm Ric 2014; 33(2): 82–89.

12.

Dawson

PICC Zone Insertion Method™ (ZIM™): a systematic approach to determine the ideal insertion site for PICCs in the upper arm. J Assoc Vasc Access 2011; 16(3): 156–165.

13.

Pittiruti

Pinelli

and GAVeCeLT Working Group for Vascular Access in COVID-19. Recommendations for the use of vascular access in the COVID-19 patients: an Italian perspective. Crit Care 2020; 24(1): 269.

14.

Scoppettuolo

Biasucci

Pittiruti

Vascular access in COVID-19 patients: smart decisions for maximal safety. J Vasc Access 2020; 21(4): 408–410.

15.

Vailati

Montrucchio

Cerotto

, et al. Choice and management of vascular access in the context of COVID-19 outbreak in Italy: recommendations from clinical practice. J Vasc Access. Epub ahead of print 16 November 2020. DOI: 10.1177/1129729820968415.

16.

Rowe

Arnold

Spencer

TR.

Catheter securement impact on PICC-related CLABSI: a university hospital perspective. Am J Infect Control 2020; 48(12): 1497–1500.

17.

Zerla

Canelli

Cerne

, et al. Evaluating safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of PICC securement by subcutaneously anchored stabilization device. J Vasc Access 2017; 18(3): 238–242.

18.

Ostroff

Pittiruti

Alternative exit sites for central venous access: back tunneling to the scapular region and distal tunneling to the patellar region. J Vasc Access. Epub ahead of print 9 July 2020. DOI: 10.1177/1129729820940178.