RESUMEN
Central venous access devices are essential for the management of critically ill patients, but they are potentially associated with many complications, which may occur during or after insertion. Many evidence-based documents-consensus and guidelines-suggest practical recommendations for reducing catheter-related complications, but they have some limitations. Some documents are not focused on critically ill patients; other documents address only some special strategies, such as the use of ultrasound; other documents are biased by obsolete concepts, inappropriate terminology, and lack of considerations for new technologies and new methods. Thus, the Italian Group of Venous Access Devices (GAVeCeLT) has decided to offer an updated compendium of the main strategies-old and new-that should be adopted for minimizing catheter-related complications in the adult critically ill patient. The project has been planned as a consensus, rather than a guideline, since many issues in this field are relatively recent, and few high-quality randomized clinical studies are currently available, particularly in the area of indications and choice of the device. Panelists were chosen between the Italian vascular access experts who had published papers on peer-reviewed journals about this topic in the last few years. The consensus process was carried out according to the RAND/University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Methodology, a modification of the Delphi method, that is, a structured process for collecting knowledge from groups of experts through a series of questionnaires. The final document has been structured as statements which answer to four major sets of questions regarding central venous access in the critically ill: (1) before insertion (seven questions), (2) during insertion (eight questions), (3) after insertion (three questions), and (4) at removal (three questions).
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Over the past decades, significant efforts have been made to reduce early and late catheter-related complications in critically ill patients, using approaches based on bundles of evidence-based interventions. METHODS: In this prospective clinical study, the authors evaluated the incidence of catheter-related complications in their neuro-intensive care unit during a 4-year period, adopting systematically the GAVeCeLT bundles for the insertion and management of all central venous access devices: centrally inserted central catheters (CICCs), peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and femorally inserted central catheters (FICCs). All early/immediate and late complications were recorded. RESULTS: On 486 central lines (328 CICCs, 149 PICCs and 9 FICCs), the only clinically relevant early/immediate complication was primary tip malposition (1%). In regards late infective complications, the authors did not record any case of catheter-related bloodstream infection; though, they observed one case of central line associated blood stream infection (one CICC; 0.14/1000 catheter days), and 15 cases of catheter colonization (12 CICCs and 3 PICCs; 2.09 episodes/1000 catheter days). Late non-infective complications were few: 14 accidental dislodgments (2.9%), 18 irreversible lumen occlusions (3.7%), and no episodes of symptomatic catheter-related thrombosis or tip migration. CONCLUSION: The systematic adoption of the GAVeCeLT bundles for CVAD insertion and maintenance was associated with a minimization of catheter-related complications. The strict adherence to the recommendations included in these bundles was the major determinant for clinical success.