The journal of vascular access
-
Peripherally inserted central catheters and centrally inserted central catheters have numerous benefits but can be associated with risks. This meta-analysis compared central catheters for relevant clinical outcomes using recent studies more likely to coincide with practice guidelines. ⋯ When adhering to best practices, this study demonstrated that concerns related to peripherally inserted central catheters and deep vein thrombosis risk are minimized. Dramatic changes to clinical practice over the last 10 years have helped to address past issues with central catheters and complication risk. Given the lower rate of complications when following current guidelines, clinicians should prioritize central line choice based on patient therapeutic needs, rather than fear of complications. Future research should continue to consider contemporary literature over antiquated data, such that it recognizes the implications of best practices in modern central catheterization.
-
With the widespread use of peripherally inserted central catheters, plenty of studies have compared peripherally inserted central catheters with other venous access devices to choose the most appropriate device in different clinical scenarios. Economic attributes are one of the important influencing factors in the selection of venous access devices. Several economic evaluation studies have been conducted in this area, but the evaluation methods, contents, outcomes, and quality of these economic studies have not been systematically evaluated. Therefore, we aimed to map the existing research on the economic evaluations of peripherally inserted central catheters and other venous access devices to provide economic evidence for decision-makers to choose a suitable venous access device. Second, we appraised the quality of economic evaluation studies in this area to highlight methodological weaknesses and provide an outline for the normative application of this methodology for future research. ⋯ This scoping review highlighted the desperate paucity of economic evaluation studies of peripherally inserted central catheters and other venous access devices in amount, evaluation contents, and economic evaluation methods. The conclusions of the cost-effectiveness analysis of peripherally inserted central catheters with other venous access devices were consistent. Conversely, the conclusions of the cost analysis of peripherally inserted central catheters with other venous access devices were inconsistent mainly in the comparison of peripherally inserted central catheters with peripheral intravenous catheters, central venous catheters, and vascular access ports during the insertion and maintenance/removal periods. This review also highlighted many methodological issues of economic evaluations in this area. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct more high-quality economic evaluation studies on peripherally inserted central catheters and other venous access devices by performing cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, or cost-benefit analysis from catheter insertion to removal to provide evidence for clinical practitioners, patients, and decision-makers to choose a suitable venous access device in different clinical scenarios.
-
Arteriovenous fistula is the most preferred form of vascular access, but stenosis treated by balloon angioplasty is prone to restenosis. Multiple trials have been published with regard to the use of paclitaxel-coated balloon to prolong lesion patency compared to conventional balloon. Although paclitaxel-coated balloon has theoretical appeal, its use has not been widespread nationwide due to cost and lack of large-scale multicenter studies. We performed this meta-analysis to evaluate whether paclitaxel-coated balloon outperforms conventional balloon to prolong target lesion patency. ⋯ Paclitaxel-coated balloon showed no statistically significant improvement over conventional balloons in decreasing fistula stenosis in randomized controlled trial but were significant for cohort studies.
-
Catheter-related bloodstream infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus represent one of the most fearful infections in chronic haemodialysis patients with tunnelled central venous catheters. Current guidelines suggest prompt catheter removal in patients with positive blood cultures for S. aureus. This manoeuvre requires inserting a new catheter into the same vein or another one and is not without its risks. ⋯ Our data lead us to believe that it is possible to successfully treat catheter-related bloodstream infection caused by S. aureus and to avoid removing the tunnelled central venous catheter in many more cases than what has been reported in the literature. On the third day, it is mandatory to decide whether to replace the tunnelled central venous catheter or to carry on with antibiotic therapy. Apyrexia and amelioration of laboratory parameters suggest continuing systemic and antibiotic lock therapy for no less than 4 weeks, otherwise, tunnelled central venous catheter removal is recommended.
-
Comparison between various approaches of ultrasound (USG)-guided internal jugular vein cannulation, that is, short-axis out-of-plane approach, long-axis in-plane approach, and oblique-axis approach, is sparse. In this network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, all three approaches were evaluated to identify the best technique for USG-guided internal jugular vein cannulation. ⋯ All three commonly used approaches for USG-guided internal jugular vein cannulation, that is, short axis, long axis, and oblique axis, are comparable in terms of clinical utility and safety. There is insufficient evidence to recommend one approach over another for this purpose.