Objective: Peripherally inserted central catheters are a popular means of obtaining central venous access in critically ill patients. However, there is limited data regarding the rapidity of the peripherally inserted central catheter procedure in the presence of acute illness or obesity, both of which may impede central venous catheter placement. We aimed to determine the feasibility, safety, and duration of peripherally inserted central catheter placement in critically ill patients, including obese patients and patients in shock. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was performed using data on 55 peripherally inserted central catheters placed in a 30-bed multidisciplinary intensive care unit in Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona. Information on the time required to complete each step of the peripherally inserted central catheter procedure, associated complications, and patient characteristics was obtained from a prospectively assembled internal quality assurance database created through random convenience sampling. Results: The Median Procedure Time, beginning with the first needle puncture and ending when the procedure is complete, was 14 (interquartile range: 9–20) min. Neither critical illness nor obesity resulted in a statistically significant increase in the time required to complete the peripherally inserted central catheter procedure. Three (5.5%) minor complications were observed. Conclusion: Critical illness and obesity do not delay the acquisition of vascular access when placing a peripherally inserted central catheter. Concerns of delayed vascular access in critically ill patients should not deter a physician from selecting a peripherally inserted central catheter to provide vascular access when it would otherwise be appropriate.

Objectives: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are increasingly recognized as an alternative to centrally inserted central catheters (CICCs) in critical care, yet the data regarding the safety and feasibility of this choice in septic shock management is growing but still lacking. In this study, we aimed to determine the feasibility, safety, and impact on outcomes of using dedicated vascular access specialist (VAS) teams to insert PICCs versus CICCs on patients admitted to the ICU with septic shock. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Mayo Clinic Rochester Medical ICU and Mayo Clinic Arizona Multidisciplinary ICU from 2013 to 2016. Patients: All adult patients hospitalized with diagnosis of septic shock excluding patients who declined authorization for review of their medical records, mixed shock states, and readmissions. Interventions: None. Measurement and main results: Comprehensive data regarding septic shock diagnosis and resuscitation were abstracted from electronic medical records. A total of 562 patients with septic shock were included in the study; 215 patients were resuscitated utilizing a PICC and 347 were resuscitated using a CICC. On univariate analysis, the time to central line insertion and time to vasopressor initiation were found to be reduced in those who received PICC at time of ICU admission versus CICC. Other favorable outcomes were also observed in those who received PICC versus CICC including shorter ICU length of stay and lower unadjusted hospital mortality. A multivariable analysis for hospital mortality showed that after adjusting for important covariates, neither the time to central line insertion nor the time to vasopressor initiation was associated with a lower hospital mortality. Conclusions: Across two tertiary referral centers within the same enterprise, use of a dedicated VAS team for insertion of PICCs for initial resuscitation in patients with septic shock was feasible and associated with shorter time to central venous access and initiation of vasopressors; however, adjusted hospital mortality was not different between the two groups.

We describe a novel, interprofessional educational intervention pilot used to orient new health profession employees through the simulation laboratory. Health profession employees were recruited to engage in a simulation training session that focused on communication, collaboration, and healthcare roles and responsibilities. Learners (N = 11) were divided into two groups with representation from various health disciplines. Each group participated in a simulated patient scenario while the other group actively observed in another classroom. At the end of both sessions, the group reconvened for a debriefing session. Participants were given a survey before and after the training session, to evaluate the content, experience, and value to their practice. The pre- and post-evaluation survey analysis showed improvement in all objectives with a mean (SD) pre-evaluation score of 4.10 (0.40-1.01) and mean (SD) post-evaluation score of 4.73 (0.30-0.81). Results were favourable, and plans to expand this project are under way.

No abstract