In the perioperative management of major head and neck surgery (HNS) patients, the performance of midline catheters (MCs) has been never tested. We present here our 5-year experience by reporting MC-related complications and by identifying the preoperative risk factors associated with their development.
Methods:
Clinical variables were extracted and the dwell time, the number, and the type of postprocedural complications of MCs were retrieved. Complications were classified into major (needing MCs removal and including catheter-related bloodstream infection or deep vein thrombosis or catheter occlusion) and into minor (accidental dislodgement, leaking, etc.). Descriptive statistics and logistic regression models were used in order to identify the predictors of complications.
Results:
A total of 265 patients were included, with a mean age of 67.4 years. Intraprocedural complications occurred in 1.1% of cases, while postprocedural complications occurred in 13.9% of cases (12.05/1000 days), but they were minor in more than 7.0% (5.4/1000 catheter-days). There were 19 minor complications (7.1% or 5.4/1000 catheter-days) while 18 (7%, 5.1/1000 catheter-days) patients experienced at least one major complication. Female sex (OR = 1.963, 95% CI 1.017–3.792), insertion in the right arm (OR = 2.473, 95% CI 1.150–5.318), and an ACE-27 score >1 (OR = 2.573, 95% CI 1.295–5.110) were independent predictors of major complications.
Conclusions:
MCs appear to represent an effective option in the setting of major HNS. The identification of patients most at risk for MC-related complications should prompt a postoperative watchful evaluation.
HealyDWCloydBHStrakerT, et al. Expert consensus statement on the perioperative management of adult patients undergoing head and neck surgery and free tissue reconstruction from the Society for Head and Neck Anesthesia. J Head Neck Anesth2021; 5(1): e39–e39.
2.
Ahmed-NusrathA. Anaesthesia for head and neck cancer surgery. BJA Educ2017; 17(12): 383–389.
3.
WorrallDMTanellaADeMariaSJr, et al. Anesthesia and enhanced recovery after head and neck surgery. Otolaryngol Clin North Am2019; 52(6): 1095–1114.
4.
DortJCFarwellDGFindlayM, et al. Optimal perioperative care in major head and neck cancer surgery with free flap reconstruction: A consensus review and recommendations from the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Society. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2017; 143(3): 292–303.
5.
PatelPNJayawardenaADLWaldenRL, et al.; FrancisDO. Evidence-based use of perioperative antibiotics in otolaryngology. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surgery2018; 158(5): 783–800.
6.
Chiesa-EstombaCMLechienJRFakhryN, et al. Systematic review of international guidelines for perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in head & neck surgery. A YO-IFOS Head & Neck Study Group Position Paper. Head Neck2019; 41(9): 3434–3456.
7.
CramerJDShumanAGBrennerMJ. Antithrombotic therapy for venous thromboembolism and prevention of thrombosis in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery: State of the art review. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2018; 158(4): 627–636. Erratum in: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019 Feb;160(2):371.
8.
MoubayedSPEskanderAMouradMW, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of venous thromboembolism in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery. Head Neck2017; 39(6): 1249–1258.
9.
LeeDHKimSYNamSY, et al. Risk factors of surgical site infection in patients undergoing major oncological surgery for head and neck cancer. Oral Oncol2011; 47(6): 528–531.
BahlAKarabonPChuD. Comparison of venous thrombosis complications in midlines versus peripherally inserted central catheters: are midlines the safer option?Clin Appl Thromb Hemost2019; 25:1076029619839150.
12.
PittirutiMVan BoxtelTScoppettuoloG, et al. European recommendations on the proper indication and use of peripheral venous access devices (the ERPIUP consensus): A WoCoVA project. J Vasc Access2021. epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1177/11297298211023274
13.
SeoHAltshulerDDubrovskayaY, et al. The safety of midline catheters for intravenous therapy at a large academic medical center. Ann Pharmacother2020; 54(3): 232–238.
14.
LescinskasETrautnerBWSaintS, et al. Use of and patient-reported complications related to midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2020; 41(5): 608–610.
15.
TripathiSKumarSKaushikS. The practice and complications of midline catheters: A systematic review. Crit Care Med2021; 49(2): e140–e150.
16.
MushtaqANavalkeleBKaurM, et al. Comparison of complications in midlines versus central venous catheters: are midlines safer than central venous lines?Am J Infect Control2018; 46(7): 788–792.
17.
SpiegelRJErasoDLeibnerE, et al. The utility of midline intravenous catheters in critically ill emergency department patients. Ann Emerg Med2020; 75(4): 538–545.
18.
MinkovichLDjaianiGMcCluskeySA, et al. Frequent malpositions of peripherally inserted central venous catheters in patients undergoing head and neck surgery. Can J Anesth2011; 58(8): 709–713.
19.
PaiKBaakliniCCabreraCI, et al. The utility of comorbidity indices in assessing head and neck surgery outcomes: A Systematic Review. Laryngoscope2021. epub ahead of print.
20.
FerrierMBSpuesensEBLe CessieS, et al. Comorbidity as a major risk factor for mortality and complications in head and neck surgery. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2005; 131(1): 27–32.
21.
DawsonRB. PICC Zone Insertion Method™ (ZIM™): A systematic approach to determine the ideal insertion site for PICCs in the upper arm. JAVA2011; 16(3): 156–165.
22.
GorskiLAStranzMCookLS, et al. Development of an evidence-based list of noncytotoxic vesicant medications and solutions. J Infus Nurs2017; 40:26–40.
23.
ChopraVKaatzSSwaminathanL, et al. Variation in use and outcomes related to midline catheters: results from a multicentre pilot study. BMJ Qual Saf2019; 28(9): 714–720.
24.
PassaroGPittirutiMLa GrecaA. The fibroblastic sleeve, the neglected complication of venous access devices: a narrative review. J Vasc Access2021; 22(5): 801–813.
25.
AdamsDZLittleAVinsantC, et al. The midline catheter: a clinical review. J Emerg Med2016; 51(3): 252–258.
26.
ChopraVFlandersSASaintS, et al. The Michigan appropriateness guide for intravenous catheters (MAGIC): results from a multispecialty panel using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. Ann Intern Med2015; 163(6 Suppl): S1–S40.
27.
GorskiLAHadawayLHagleME, et al. Infusion therapy standards of practice, 8th edition.J Infus Nurs2021; 44(1S Suppl 1): S1–S224.
28.
PinelliFLittleAKokotisK, et al. Assessment of the MAGIC recommendations in context of evolving evidence based on the use of PICC in ICU. J Vasc Access2021; 11297298211048019. epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1177/11297298211048019
29.
ShellenbergerTDMadero-VisbalRWeberRS. Quality Indicators in head and Neck Operations: A comparison with published benchmarks. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2011; 137(11): 1086–1093.
30.
HusbandsJMWeberRSKarpatiRL, et al. Clinical care pathways: decreasing resource utilization in head and neck surgical patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg1999; 121(6): 755–759.
31.
MarshNWebsterJLarsonE, et al. Observational study of peripheral intravenous catheter outcomes in adult hospitalized patients: a multivariable analysis of peripheral intravenous catheter failure. J Hosp Med2018; 13(2): 83–89.
32.
QinKRPittirutiMNatarajaRM, et al. Long peripheral catheters and midline catheters: insights from a survey of vascular access specialists. J Vasc Access2021; 22(6): 905–910.
33.
NielsenEBAntonsenLMenselC, et al. The efficacy of midline catheters—a prospective, randomized, active-controlled study. Int J Infect Dis2021; 102:220–225.
34.
SwaminathanLFlandersSHorowitzJ, et al. Safety and outcomes of midline catheters vs peripherally inserted central catheters for patients with short-term indications: A multicenter study. JAMA Intern Med2021. epub ahead of print.
35.
MermelLAAllonMBouzaE, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of intravascular catheter-related infection: 2009 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis2009; 49(1): 1–45.
36.
DeVriesMLeeJHoffmanL. Infection free midline catheter implementation at a community hospital (2 years). Am J Infect Control2019; 47(9): 1118–1121.
37.
BouzidiHEmirianAMartyA, et al. Differential time to positivity of central and peripheral blood cultures is inaccurate for the diagnosis of Staphylococcus aureus long-term catheter-related sepsis. J Hosp Infect2018; 99(2): 192–199.
38.
Orihuela-MartínJRodríguez-NúñezOMorataL, et al. Performance of differential time to positivity as a routine diagnostic test for catheter-related bloodstream infections: a single-centre experience. Clin Microbiol Infect2020; 26(3): 383.e1–383.e7.
39.
LisovaKHromadkovaJPavelkováK, et al. The incidence of symptomatic upper limb venous thrombosis associated with midline catheter: Prospective observation. J Vasc Access2018; 19(5): 492–495.
40.
McGeeDCGouldMK. Preventing complications of central venous catheterization. New Engl J Med2003; 348(12): 1123–1133.
41.
CraftPSMayJDorigoA, et al. Hickman catheters: left-sided insertion, male gender, and obesity are associated with an increased risk of complications. Aust NZ J Med1996; 26:33–39.
42.
LinWYLinCPHsuCH, et al. Right or left? Side selection for a totally implantable vascular access device: a randomised observational study. Br J Cancer2017; 117:932–937.
43.
BannonMPHellerSFRiveraM. Anatomic considerations for central venous cannulation. Risk Manag Healthc Policy2011; 4:27–39.
44.
EvansGRSchustermanMAKrollSS, et al. The radial forearm free flap for head and neck reconstruction: a review. Am J Surg1994; 168(5): 446–450.
45.
PetersTTvan DijkBARoodenburgJL, et al. Relation between age, comorbidity, and complications in patients undergoing major surgery for head and neck cancer. Ann Surg Oncol2014; 21(3): 963–970.
46.
DatemaFRFerrierMBvan der SchroeffMP, et al. Impact of comorbidity on short-term mortality and overall survival of head and neck cancer patients. Head Neck2010; 32(6): 728–736.
47.
MonteiroARGarciaARPereiraTC, et al. ACE-27 as a prognostic tool of severe acute toxicities in patients with head and neck cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy: a real-world, prospective, observational study. Support Care Cancer2021; 29(4): 1863–1871.
48.
HorvathBKloeselBToddMM, et al. The evolution, current value, and future of the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System. Anesthesiology2021; 135(5): 904–919.
49.
BhargavaMBroccardSBaiY, et al. Risk factors for peripherally inserted central catheter line-related deep venous thrombosis in critically ill intensive care unit patients. SAGE Open Med2020; 8:2050312120929238. DOI: 10.1177/2050312120929238
50.
AbolfotouhMASalamMBani-MustafaA, et al. Prospective study of incidence and predictors of peripheral intravenous catheter-induced complications. Ther Clin Risk Manag2014; 10:993–1001.
51.
LiuBXieJSunX, et al. Development and validation of a new clinical prediction model of catheter-related thrombosis based on vascular ultrasound diagnosis in cancer patients. Front Cardiovasc Med2020; 7:571227.
52.
De BackerDVincentJL. Should we measure the central venous pressure to guide fluid management? Ten answers to 10 questions. Crit Care2018; 22(1): 43.
53.
ArendsJBachmannPBaracosV, et al. ESPEN guidelines on nutrition in cancer patients. Clin Nutr2017; 36(1): 11–48.
54.
ElliSPittirutiMPigozzoV, et al. Ultrasound-guided tip location of midline catheters. J Vasc Access2020; 21(5): 764–768.
