A Survey of Invasive Catheter Practices in U.S. Burn Centers

and ║Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Journal of burn care & research: official publication of the American Burn Association (Impact Factor: 1.43). 11/2012; 33(6):741-6. DOI: 10.1097/BCR.0b013e318254d4ab
Source: PubMed


Burn-specific guidelines for optimal catheter rotation, catheter type, insertion methods, and catheter site care do not exist, and practices vary widely from one burn unit to another. The purpose of this study was to define current practices and identify areas of practice variation for future clinical investigation. An online survey was sent to the directors of 123 U.S. burn centers. The survey consisted of 23 questions related to specific practices in placement and maintenance of central venous catheters (CVCs), arterial catheters, and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). The overall response rate was 36%; response rate from verified centers was 52%. Geographic representation was wide. CVC and arterial catheter replacement varied from every 3 days (24% of sites) to only for overt infection (24% of sites); 23% of sites did not use the femoral position for CVC placement. Nearly 60% of units used some kind of antiseptic catheter. Physicians inserted the majority of catheters, and 22% of sites used nonphysicians for at least some insertions. Ultrasound was routinely used by less than 50% of units. A wide variety of post-insertion dressing protocols were followed. PICCs were used in some critically injured patients in 37% of units; the majority of these users did not rotate PICCs. Thus, it can be surmised that wide practice variation exists among burn centers with regard to insertion and maintenance of invasive catheters. Areas with particular variability that would be appropriate targets of clinical investigation are line rotation protocols, catheter site care protocols, and use of PICCs in acute burns.

19 Reads
  • Source
    • "Despite this improvement, complications still occur, although at a much lower rate than the traditional landmark-only based approach.1–4, 14 Despite these studies and the endorsement of many professional organizations, the widespread use and adoption of ultrasound guided CVC insertion is low,15–18,25 with one recent study reporting as few as 13% of anesthesiologists routinely performing CVC with US guidance.15 The routine utilization of ultrasound for central venous access by emergency physicians is unknown since ultrasound guided CVC training has become mandatory in residency, however, two small regional surveys have shown acceptance rates as high as 97% among residents currently in training and 78% for those beyond residency.26–27 "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction Real-time ultrasound guidance is considered to be the standard of care for central venous access for non-emergent central lines. However, adoption has been slow, in part because of the technical challenges and time required to become proficient. The AxoTrack® system (Soma Access Systems, Greenville, SC) is a novel ultrasound guidance system recently cleared for human use by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Methods After FDA clearance, the AxoTrack® system was released to three hospitals in the United States. Physicians and nurse practitioners who work in the intensive care unit or emergency department and who place central venous catheters were trained to use the AxoTrack® system. De-identified data about central lines placed in living patients with the AxoTrack® system was prospectively gathered at each of the three hospitals for quality assurance purposes. After institutional review board approval, we consolidated the data for the first five months of use for retrospective review. Results The AxoTrack® system was used by 22 different health care providers in 50 consecutive patients undergoing central venous cannulation (CVC) from September 2012 to February 2013. All patients had successful CVC with the guidance of the AxoTrack® system. All but one patient (98%) had successful cannulation on the first site attempted. There were no reported complications, including pneumothorax, hemothorax, arterial puncture or arterial cannulation. Conclusion The AxoTrack® system was a safe and effective means of CVC that was used by a variety of health care practitioners.
    The western journal of emergency medicine 07/2014; 15(4):536-40. DOI:10.5811/westjem.2014.1.16305
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Approximately 2457 research articles were published with burns in the title, abstract, and/or keyword in 2012. This number continues to rise through the years; this article reviews those selected by the Editor of one of the major journals in the field (Burns) and his colleague that are most likely to have the greatest likelihood of affecting burn care treatment and understanding. As done previously, articles were found and divided into these topic areas: epidemiology of injury and burn prevention, wound and scar characterization, acute care and critical care, inhalation injury, infection, psychological considerations, pain and itching management, rehabilitation, long-term outcomes, and burn reconstruction. Each selected article is mentioned briefly with comment from the authors; readers are referred to the full papers for further details.
    Burns: journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 11/2013; 39(8). DOI:10.1016/j.burns.2013.11.001 · 1.88 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of the study was to conduct a systematic review to identify and appraise the evidence on possible association of the site of venous catheter insertion in burn patients and an increased occurrence of catheter-related infection. Searches were performed in MEDLINE, LILACS, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library. Nine studies were selected for the review; four of them mentioned, directly or indirectly, an association between catheter-related infection and the insertion of the catheter either in the burn wound or in surrounding area, and five studies investigated the occurrence of infection related to both the catheter and the anatomical sites of catheter insertion. Higher infection rates occurred when the catheters were inserted directly in the burn wound or near the wound (level of evidence IV) or in the femoral vein (level of evidence IV). No significant differences in infection occurrence rates were observed between central catheters and peripherally inserted central catheter (level of evidence IV). Further investigations for techniques and types of coverage of venous catheter insertion dressings are important for preventing infection in burn patients. Also, new technologies for venous access must be evaluated.
    Burns: journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 11/2013; 40(3). DOI:10.1016/j.burns.2013.10.026 · 1.88 Impact Factor
Show more