No abstract

Background: Home parenteral nutrition (HPN) has become a common therapy. There is still controversy regarding the possibility that peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) may diminish catheter-related blood stream infection (CRBSI) rates. Methods: We searched the PubMed database for studies reporting the rates of CRBSI with HPN. Study selection was performed independently by three investigators. Disagreements were discussed and resolved by consensus or by arbitration by an author not involved in the search. The National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tools was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies. Meta-analyses were performed using MetaXL 5.3 with the quality effects model. Results: Screening of the article titles and abstracts yielded 134 full text articles for evaluation. Only three prospective studies that included appropriate data were considered for the final analysis. The relative risk of the CRBSI rate was 0.41 (0.14–1.17) for PICC vs. tunneled catheters. The relative risk of the CRBSI rate was 0.16 (0.04–0.64) for PICC vs. ports. The relative risk of the thrombosis rate was 3.16 (0.20–49.67) for PICCs vs. tunneled. Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to show a difference in CRBSI rates between PICCs and tunneled catheters. On the other hand, PICCs showed lower CRBSI rates than ports. There was also no difference in the rate of catheter-related thrombosis and mechanical complications.

Introducción: recientemente se ha planteado la posibilidad de comprobar la colocación de los catéteres centrales de inserción periférica (PICC) mediante control electrocardiográfico intracavitario (ECG-IC) ya que permitiría disminuir el tiempo de colocación y evitaría el control radiológico.Objetivo: evaluación de dicho método frente al control radiológico habitual.Métodos: estudio prospectivo en el que se incluyeron 532 pacientes de forma consecutiva. Se excluyeron aquellos pacientes con arritmias o en tratamiento con fármacos antiarrítmicos. En todos los casos se comprobó la colocación de la punta del PICC mediante control ECG-IC y mediante la realización de una radiografía de tórax, que fue considerada método de referencia.Resultados: la colocación del PICC gracias al control ECG-IC (aplicabilidad) fue del 96,8%. La correcta colocación del PICC gracias a la interpretación del ECG-IC se confirmó en un 94% de los casos con la radiografía de tórax (precisión). En 13 pacientes (2,7%) se requirió la recolocación del catéter tras el control radiológico. El índice κ de concordancia fue de 0,356 (p < 0,001). La sensibilidad del método ECG fue de 0,98, con un VPP de 0,97 y un cociente de probabilidad positivo de 1,5. Sin embargo, la especificidad fue solo del 0,35 con un VPN de 0,41 y un cociente de probabilidad negativo de 0,06.Conclusión: la comprobación de la colocación de los PICC mediante ECG-IC es plausible, segura, presenta unos índices de validez/fiabilidad adecuados y permitiría disminuir el tiempo de colocación del catéter. Sin embargo, la comprobación radiológica sigue siendo necesaria, especialmente en los casos de ECG negativo o dudoso.

We aimed to study the possible association of stress hyperglycemia in COVID-19 critically ill patients with prognosis, artificial nutrition, circulating osteocalcin, and other serum markers of inflammation and compare them with non-COVID-19 patients. Fifty-two critical patients at the intensive care unit (ICU), 26 with COVID-19 and 26 non-COVID-19, were included. Glycemic control, delivery of artificial nutrition, serum osteocalcin, total and ICU stays, and mortality were recorded. Patients with COVID-19 had higher ICU stays, were on artificial nutrition for longer (p = 0.004), and needed more frequently insulin infusion therapy (p = 0.022) to control stress hyperglycemia. The need for insulin infusion therapy was associated with higher energy (p = 0.001) and glucose delivered through artificial nutrition (p = 0.040). Those patients with stress hyperglycemia showed higher ICU stays (23 ± 17 vs. 11 ± 13 days, p = 0.007). Serum osteocalcin was a good marker for hyperglycemia, as it inversely correlated with glycemia at admission in the ICU (r = −0.476, p = 0.001) and at days 2 (r = −0.409, p = 0.007) and 3 (r = −0.351, p = 0.049). In conclusion, hyperglycemia in critically ill COVID-19 patients was associated with longer ICU stays. Low circulating osteocalcin was a good marker for stress hyperglycemia.