BACKGROUND: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and midline catheters (MCs) may offer convenient intravenous access, but evidence to support their place in palliative care is limited. This review aimed to assess catheter indications, utilization, complications, dwell time, and patient experiences in cancer patients receiving palliative care.
METHODS: A systematic search for studies on catheter utilization for supportive or symptom treatment was conducted in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane, and CENTRAL databases. Studies with a study population or a subgroup of palliative care cancer patients were included. Study quality was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Quality assessment tool.
RESULTS: Of 7631 unique titles, 17 articles were examined in detail, all published between 2002 and 2022. Median catheter dwell time varied from 15 to 194 days, the longest when utilized for home parenteral nutrition. For pain and symptom management, the typical duration was 2-4 weeks, often until the patient\'s death. Complication rates were minimal, with thrombosis, infections, and occlusion ranging from 0 to 2.46 incidents per 1000 catheter days. In studies from palliative care services, patients reported minimal distress during procedures and high user satisfaction. Quality of life assessments post-procedure improved, possibly influenced by concurrent specialist palliative care provision. All studies were assessed to be of moderate or weak quality.
CONCLUSIONS: PICC and MC are safe and valuable tools in palliative care cancer patients who would benefit from intravenous access for symptom management. Further studies are needed to clarify indications for PICC or MC in palliative care.

OBJECTIVE: This review summarizes the latest findings and recommendations about the characteristics, indications and use of peripheral and central long-term venous access devices.The various complications inherent in these devices are becoming better known, and their contributing factors determined, which could make it possible to reduce their incidence.
RESULTS: Some measures are integrated into recommendations for good practice, such as appropriate selection of devices, the preferential use of the thinnest catheters, and cyanoacrylate glue and dressings impregnated with chlorhexidine.
CONCLUSIONS: Improving understanding of the phenomena leading to infectious and thrombotic complications, as well as better knowing the differences between intravenous devices and their respective indications, should lead to improvement of in-hospital and out-of-hospital care.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of teaching-learning programs for cancer patients and/or their caregivers or family in preventing and controlling infections associated with long-term central venous access devices.
METHODS: This systematic review used the CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, LILACS, and MEDLINE via PubMed portal, Scopus, and Web of Science. Google Scholar was used for the gray literature search. The included studies were analyzed, and the obtained data were qualitatively synthesized. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane tools: RoB 2 and ROBINS-I. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the GRADE. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021267530).
CONCLUSIONS: The teaching-learning programs were implemented through theoretical-practical and theoretical dimensions in five and two studies, respectively. The risk of bias in the studies was low, moderate, severe, and high in one, three, two, and one of them, respectively. The certainty was very low. Teaching-learning programs on central venous access devices care for cancer patients and/or their caregivers or families could be effective in reducing infection rates.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review addressed the teaching-learning programs for preventing and controlling infections associated with long-term central venous access devices. We identified that the most programs were effective in reducing the infection rates. The results may influence the clinical practice of oncology nurses, and consequently, the educational strategies and methods provided not only to these patients but for caregivers and families.

BACKGROUND: Central catheter bloodstream infections (CRBSI) is a major cause of healthcare-associated infections. However, few factors are generally accepted and some studies have conflicting finding about some factors, possibly caused by limitation associated with an individual study. This study was to identify risk factors for CRBSI in intensive care units.
METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of science and EMBASE databases and the 4 top Chinese-language databases, including WanFang data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), China Biology Medicine disc (CBM) as of July 2023. Case control and cohort studies were included. Two authors independently screened the literature and evaluated the quality of the studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). The pooled effect size was estimated using the odds ratio (OR), and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. The Cochrane Q (χ2) and I2 tests were used to assess heterogeneity among studies, and each risk factor was tested for its robustness using fixed- or random-effects models.
RESULTS: A total of 32 studies enrolled, among which eleven factors were identified, they were divided into two categories: modifiable and unmodifiable factors. Modifiable factors: duration of catheterization (≥ 5d) (OR: 2.07, 95%CI: 1.41-3.03), duration of catheterization (≥ 7d) (OR: 3.62, 95%CI: 2.65-4.97), duration of catheterization (≥ 14d)(OR: 4.85, 95%CI: 3.35-7.01), total parenteral nutrition (OR: 2.27,95%CI: 1.56-3.29), use of multiple-lumen catheters(OR: 3.41, 95%CI: 2.27-5.11), times of tube indwelling (OR: 3.50, 95%CI: 2.93-4.17), length of ICU stay (OR: 4.05, 95%CI: 2.41-6.80), the position of indwelling(OR: 2.41, 95%CI: 2.03-2.85); Unmodifiable factors: APACHEII scores (OR: 1.84, 95%CI: 1.54-2.20), Age≥ 60 years old (OR: 2.19, 95%CI: 1.76-2.73), the extensive use of antibiotic (OR: 3.54, 95%CI: 1.65-7.61), Diabetes mellitus (OR: 3.06, 95%CI: 2.56-3.66), Immunosuppression (OR: 2.87, 95%CI: 2.08-3.95).
CONCLUSIONS: Effective interventions targeting the above modifiable factors may reduce the risk of developing CRBSI in ICU and improve the clinical outcome of patients. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

BACKGROUND: Lack of agreed terminology and definitions in healthcare compromises communication, patient safety, optimal management of adverse events, and research progress. The purpose of this scoping review was to understand the terminologies used to describe central venous access devices (CVADs), associated complications and reasons for premature removal in people undergoing cancer treatment. It also sought to identify the definitional sources for complications and premature removal reasons. The objective was to map language and descriptions used and to explore opportunities for standardisation.
METHODS: A systematic search of MedLine, PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL Complete and Embase databases was performed. Eligibility criteria included, but were not limited to, adult patients with cancer, and studies published between 2017 and 2022. Articles were screened and data extracted in Covidence. Data charting included study characteristics and detailed information on CVADs including terminologies and definitional sources for complications and premature removal reasons. Descriptive statistics, tables and bar graphs were used to summarise charted data.
RESULTS: From a total of 2363 potentially eligible studies, 292 were included in the review. Most were observational studies (n = 174/60%). A total of 213 unique descriptors were used to refer to CVADs, with all reasons for premature CVAD removal defined in 84 (44%) of the 193 studies only, and complications defined in 56 (57%) of the 292 studies. Where available, definitions were author-derived and/or from national resources and/or other published studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variation in CVAD terminology and a lack of standard definitions for associated complications and premature removal reasons was identified. This scoping review demonstrates the need to standardise CVAD nomenclature to enhance communication between healthcare professionals as patients undergoing cancer treatment transition between acute and long-term care, to enhance patient safety and rigor of research protocols, and improve the capacity for data sharing.

BACKGROUND: Tunneled central venous catheters (CVCs) are the cornerstone of modern oncologic practice. Establishing best practices for catheter management in children with cancer is essential to optimize care, but few guidelines exist to guide placement and management.
OBJECTIVE: To address four questions: 1) Does catheter composition influence the incidence of complications; 2) Is there a platelet count below which catheter placement poses an increased risk of complications; 3) Is there an absolute neutrophil count (ANC) below which catheter placement poses an increased risk of complications; and 4) Are there best practices for the management of a central line associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI)?
METHODS: Data Sources: English language articles in Ovid Medline, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Databases.
METHODS: Independently performed by 2 reviewers, disagreements resolved by a third reviewer.
METHODS: Performed by 4 reviewers on forms designed by consensus, quality assessed by GRADE methodology.
RESULTS: Data were extracted from 110 manuscripts. There was no significant difference in fracture rate, venous thrombosis, catheter occlusion or infection by catheter composition. Thrombocytopenia with minimum thresholds of 30,000-50,000 platelets/mcl was not associated with major hematoma. Limited evidence suggests a platelet count <30,000/mcL was associated with small increased risk of hematoma. While few studies found a significant increase in CLABSI in CVCs placed in neutropenic patients with ANC<500Kcells/dl, meta-analysis suggests a small increase in this population. Catheter removal remains recommended in complicated or persistent infections. Limited evidence supports antibiotic, ethanol, or hydrochloric lock therapy in definitive catheter salvage. No high-quality data were available to answer any of the proposed questions.
CONCLUSIONS: Although over 15,000 tunneled catheters are placed annually in North America into children with cancer, there is a paucity of evidence to guide practice, suggesting multiple opportunities to improve care.
METHODS: III. This study was registered as PROSPERO 2019 CRD42019124077.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the quality and analyse the content of clinical practice guidelines regarding central venous catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) to provide evidence for formulating an evidence-based practice protocol and a risk assessment scale to prevent it.
METHODS: Scoring and analysis of the guidelines using the AGREE II and AGREE REX scales.
METHODS: Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature, and the relevant websites of the guideline, were searched from 1 January 2017 to 26 March 2022.
METHODS: Guidelines covering CRT treatment, prevention, or management were included from 1 January 2017 to 26 March 2022.
METHODS: Three independent reviewers systematically trained in using the AGREE II and AGREE REX scales were selected to evaluate these guidelines.
RESULTS: Nine guidelines were included, and the quality grade results showed that three were at A-level and six were at B-level. The included guidelines mainly recommended the prevention measure of central venous CRT from three aspects: risk screening, prevention strategies, and knowledge training, with a total of 22 suggestions being recommended.
CONCLUSIONS: The overall quality of the guidelines is high, but there are few preventive measures for central venous CRT involved in the guidelines. All preventive measures have yet to be systematically integrated and evaluated, and no risk assessment scale dedicated to this field has been recommended. Therefore, developing an evidence-based practice protocol and a risk assessment scale to prevent it is urgent.

UNASSIGNED: Central venous catheters (CVCs) are commonly used but are associated with complications. Quantifying complication rates is essential for guiding CVC utilization decisions.
UNASSIGNED: To summarize current rates of CVC-associated complications.
UNASSIGNED: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases were searched for observational studies and randomized clinical trials published between 2015 to 2023.
UNASSIGNED: This study included English-language observational studies and randomized clinical trials of adult patients that reported complication rates of short-term centrally inserted CVCs and data for 1 or more outcomes of interest. Studies that evaluated long-term intravascular devices, focused on dialysis catheters not typically used for medication administration, or studied catheters placed by radiologists were excluded.
UNASSIGNED: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis was applied to summarize event rates. Rates of placement complications (events/1000 catheters with 95% credible interval [CrI]) and use complications (events/1000 catheter-days with 95% CrI) were estimated.
UNASSIGNED: Ten prespecified complications associated with CVC placement (placement failure, arterial puncture, arterial cannulation, pneumothorax, bleeding events requiring action, nerve injury, arteriovenous fistula, cardiac tamponade, arrhythmia, and delay of ≥1 hour in vasopressor administration) and 5 prespecified complications associated with CVC use (malfunction, infection, deep vein thrombosis [DVT], thrombophlebitis, and venous stenosis) were assessed. The composite of 4 serious complications (arterial cannulation, pneumothorax, infection, or DVT) after CVC exposure for 3 days was also assessed.
UNASSIGNED: Of 11 722 screened studies, 130 were included in the analyses. Seven of 15 prespecified complications were meta-analyzed. Placement failure occurred at 20.4 (95% CrI, 10.9-34.4) events per 1000 catheters placed. Other rates of CVC placement complications (per 1000 catheters) were arterial canulation (2.8; 95% CrI, 0.1-10), arterial puncture (16.2; 95% CrI, 11.5-22), and pneumothorax (4.4; 95% CrI, 2.7-6.5). Rates of CVC use complications (per 1000 catheter-days) were malfunction (5.5; 95% CrI, 0.6-38), infection (4.8; 95% CrI, 3.4-6.6), and DVT (2.7; 95% CrI, 1.0-6.2). It was estimated that 30.2 (95% CrI, 21.8-43.0) in 1000 patients with a CVC for 3 days would develop 1 or more serious complication (arterial cannulation, pneumothorax, infection, or DVT). Use of ultrasonography was associated with lower rates of arterial puncture (risk ratio [RR], 0.20; 95% CrI, 0.09-0.44; 13.5 events vs 68.8 events/1000 catheters) and pneumothorax (RR, 0.25; 95% CrI, 0.08-0.80; 2.4 events vs 9.9 events/1000 catheters).
UNASSIGNED: Approximately 3% of CVC placements were associated with major complications. Use of ultrasonography guidance may reduce specific risks including arterial puncture and pneumothorax.

The prevalence of central venous catheters (CVC) in hemodialysis patients is around 20-30%. In this scenario, complications related to the use of the CVC are commonly observed, requiring active management by nephrologists. These include infectious complications as well as those related to CVC malfunction. Among the latter, the formation of a fibrin sheath around the catheter linked to foreign body reaction could cause CVC malfunction in various ways. Even after the removal of the catheter, the fibrin sheath can remain inside the vascular lumen (ghost fibrin sheath) and rarely undergo calcification. We describe the clinical case of a hemodialysis patient who, following the removal of a malfunctioning, stuck CVC, presented a calcified tubular structure in the lumen of the superior vena cava, diagnosed as calcified fibrin sheath (CFS). This rare occurrence, described in the literature in 8 other cases, although rare, is certainly underdiagnosed and can lead to complications such as sepsis resulting from CFS, pulmonary embolisms, and vascular thrombosis. Therapeutic approaches should be considered only in symptomatic cases and involve an invasive surgical approach.

BACKGROUND: Intravascular catheters are crucial devices in medical practice that increase the risk of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs), and related health-economic adverse outcomes. This scoping review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of published automated algorithms for surveillance of catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI) and central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI).
METHODS: We performed a scoping review based on a systematic search of the literature in PubMed and EMBASE from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2021. Studies were included if they evaluated predictive performance of automated surveillance algorithms for CLABSI/CRBSI detection and used manually collected surveillance data as reference. We assessed the design of the automated systems, including the definitions used to develop algorithms (CLABSI versus CRBSI), the datasets and denominators used, and the algorithms evaluated in each of the studies.
RESULTS: We screened 586 studies based on title and abstract, and 99 were assessed based on full text. Nine studies were included in the scoping review. Most studies were monocentric (n = 5), and they identified CLABSI (n = 7) as an outcome. The majority of the studies used administrative and microbiological data (n = 9) and five studies included the presence of a vascular central line in their automated system. Six studies explained the denominator they selected, five of which chose central line-days. The most common rules and steps used in the algorithms were categorized as hospital-acquired rules, infection rules (infection versus contamination), deduplication, episode grouping, secondary BSI rules (secondary versus primary BSI), and catheter-associated rules.
CONCLUSIONS: The automated surveillance systems that we identified were heterogeneous in terms of definitions, datasets and denominators used, with a combination of rules in each algorithm. Further guidelines and studies are needed to develop and implement algorithms to detect CLABSI/CRBSI, with standardized definitions, appropriate data sources and suitable denominators.