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: 1.55). 11/2012; 33(6):741-6. DOI: 10.1097/BCR.0b013e318254d4ab
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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).
    The western journal of emergency medicine 07/2014; 15(4):536-40.
  • BJA British Journal of Anaesthesia 05/2014; · 4.24 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Existing practice guidelines designed to minimize invasive catheter infections and insertion-related complications in general intensive care unit patients are difficult to apply to the burn population. Burn-specific guidelines for optimal frequency for catheter exchange do not exist, and great variation exists among institutions. Previously, the practice was to follow a new site insertion at 48 hours by an exchange over a guidewire, which was followed 48 hours later by a second guidewire exchange (48h group). As a performance improvement initiative, the authors attempted to determine whether there would be any advantage or disadvantage to extending these intervals to 72 hours (72h). All patients with centrally placed intravascular catheters from October 2007 to August 2008 were included in the 48h group, and all patients with catheters placed from September 2008 to December 2009 comprised the 72h group. Catheter infection rates were determined using the National Healthcare Safety Network definition for central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) and calculated as CLABSIs/1000 catheter days. The two groups were not significantly different for age, sex, cause of burn, total burn size, or percent third-degree burn. There were 3.1 CLABSIs/1000 catheter days for the 48h group and 2.8 CLABSIs/1000 catheter days for the 72h group (NS). The authors conclude that increasing the central catheter change interval from 48 to 72 hours did not result in any increase in their CLABSI rate. Implementation of this change in practice is expected to decrease supply costs by $28,000 annually in addition to reducing clinical support services needed to perform these procedures.
    Journal of burn care & research: official publication of the American Burn Association 01/2014; · 1.55 Impact Factor