Forum topic

15 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lorelle
PICC lines and DVT

Good afternoon colleagues,

 I have a critical care physician who is being particularly difficult getting on board with our Early Assessment PICC Program.  More specifically, he states that there is a significant amount of research available to support NOT using PICC’s because of the unknown incidence of risk for upper extremity DVT. 

I have found multiple research articles that conclude that Venous Thrombosis is a significant complication of PICC placement, and that it occurs more frequently than previously recognized.I am looking for some professional help in approaching this physician with some alternate research that promotes the use of PICC lines.

Is there anything out there that says the incidence of DVT is LOW? I believe that if appropriate assessment of risk factors are taken, as well as appropriate management of the PICC line including passive range of motion, the incidence of upper extremity DVT will be low - however this physician is RESEARCH driven and I need some help.  Thank you for your time and consideration.

Out of curiosity...... Kathy - What would you say to this physician?Lynn - What would you say?Thanks! 

Here are some of my sources that say that the incidence of DVT with PICC's is high:

Chemaly, R. F. , de Parres, J. B., Rehmn, S. J. et al. (2002). Venous thrombosis associated with peripherally inserted central catheters: A retrospective analysis of the cleveland clinic experience. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 34, 1179-83. 

Allen, A. W., Mergargell, J. L.. Brown, D. B et al. (2000). Venous thrombosis associated with the placement of peripherally inserted central catheters. JVIR,11, 1309-14.

Gonsalves, C. F., Eschelman, D. J., Sullivan, K. L., DuBois, N, & Bonn, J. (2003). Incidence of central vein stenosis and occlusion following upper extremity PICC and port placement.  Cardiovascular Interventional Radiology, 26, 123-127.

lynncrni
Yes, there are several

Yes, there are several studies that report the risk of catheter related thrombosis associated with PICCs. But the truth is that the patient needs some type of vascular access to deliver the therapy. What are your alternatives? If he is thinking short peripheral catheters, there are numerous studies showing phlebitis and thrombosis when peripheral veins are used for solutions with extremes of pH and osmolarity. What is the comparison of thrombosis rates between PICCs and nontunneled CVCs? The bottom line is that you must provide the device with the least risk to the patient. 

 I would never allow any other professional to put me in this position. They say XX and send me on a wild goose chase to locate the published research to support or refute both sides of the issue. If this physician is so dedicated to evidence, put the responsibility on him or her to produce the evidence to which he or she is referring. Don't do their job for them. Lynn

Lynn Hadaway, M.Ed., RN, NPD-BC, CRNI

Lynn Hadaway Associates, Inc.

PO Box 10

Milner, GA 30257

Website http://www.hadawayassociates.com

Office Phone 770-358-7861

Lorelle
Lynn,  Thank you for your

Lynn,

 Thank you for your time and expert opinion.  I wholeheartdly agree with you that this is not the most professional way to deal with matters with a physician however, I think we've all been challenged at one time or another and he is definitely one of my challenges.

I appreciate your response.  Thank you. 

Lorelle Wuerz BS, RN

Lorelle Wuerz BS, RN

estevens102206
I personally think this

I personally think this issue of higher DVT rates and PICCs lines is raging is because of these large cateters we place simply for power injection. The manufacturers are making 5 French catheters that taper to above 7 French and we are putting them in all of our patients. This is absurd!!! Our job is to protect these patients and do what is "best" for them. We need to demand from our manufacturers the smallest possible catheter that will do the job. We are placing triple lumens at my facility that taper to 8 French. That is larger then a triple lumen central line!!!! No wonder the issue of DVT's is going through the roof. Just my thoughts!!!!! 

 

Eric

Eric

kokotis
First off the article in

First off the article in cleveland clinic your first reference - I need to pull as Cleveland Clinic PICC Team did not use micro's or ultrasound in 2002.  In fact they only placed PICC lines on nutritional support patients back than and they did not incorporate micro or ultrasound until 2005.  The majority of PICC line placements were IR driven and those done by RN's were below the antecubital fossa or in the fossa.  IR did not do ICU patients due to risk of transport.  By the way nutritional support has a high rate of thrombosis

I have to look up the other two articles and get back to you as the majority of these publications are based on lower arm PICC line insertins even if they are published in JVIR or ASPEN's journal.  The level of high tech RN's in 2000, 2003 was very low.  There is no new articles since ultrasound is becoming more commonplace

I think thrombosis is blown out of proportion if you want my opinion

I also think since the peripheral veins are more superficial one is apt to see the symptoms versys a subclavian placed line

 

 

 

 

 

Kathy Kokotis

Bard Access Systems

Gina Sherlock
Hi all I'm an IV nurse for
Hi all I'm an IV nurse for 15 years at Sarasota Memorial Hospital. We too have what we consider a high DVT rate,  although it is only 4.5% I feel it is too high. I am doing a study this summer trying to compare anticoagulation vs standard of care. I also thought passive range of motion for pt in ICU who are paralized with meds and do not move would be beneficial. Does anyone out therre do a DVT rate? Are any hospital's on DVT prophylaxis? We also insert MST and ultrasound but our DVT rate hasn't changed inserting above the AC because we are inserting PICC's in pt with a higher acuity. We had a great meeting last week with several IV nurses, one in particuclar oversees 5 hospitals with 70 IV nurses. They actually treat the DVT and do not remove the cath unless necessary. They also believe the DVT rate would be high if they kept a rate but they don't.  I need all the evidenced based practice I can get my hands on. Any advice would also be greatly appreciated.  Thanks I love this web site will visit often. Gina
ladena rhoden
Gina, Glad to see your

Gina,

Glad to see your comment on the listserve.  I met you at a networking meeting a while back. 

My groups are in Charlotte County and we do keep a prevalence rate for UEVT.  I have not attempted a 'per catheter day' calculation as of yet, but hope to later this year. 

At one hospital, our rate went up the 1st qtr of this year, so we looked at factors and could not find any major trends beside age (over 60) and acuity.

We have prepared a tool to standardize terms used in documentation of insertion and possibly help identify specific issues that may lead to development of a VT.  I hope to begin that project next month.  Let me know if you would like to know how that goes.

Heather Nichols
Lorelle,   Just my two

Lorelle,

  Just my two cents worth, but I agree with Cheryl Kelly and Lynn.  If you are doing a good pre-assessment, you should find out quickly that not all patients need a picc. When we started pre-assessing our patients, we went from doing 150 to 200 picc's per month, to less then 100 per month.  We also became closer with our radiology group since we started doing more port and tunneled line placements.  I think that thrombus in picc's is also more related to placing picc's in patients that are not properly anticoagulated.  For instance, we had a patient that had a tramatic bran injury with a pretty severe bleed.  He could not be anticoagulated for that reason.  We placed a picc in him and it developed a clot. He does not move either.  We pulled that picc and despite our best efforts, the docs asked for another, and you guessed it, we had another clot.  It just was not the smartest thing to do for this patient.  But Lynn is absolutely correct when she told you to ask the doctor for the information he has read on this subject.  She may not have been very expicit in the way she told you to ask, but what I am sure she means is that you will then have the exact documentation the doctor obtained his information from, and then you can properly refute it, or come up with a collaborative plan of action for his patients.  You also need for him to let you know what he prefers in his patients as access, so that you can also provide him with evidence against that if need be.  After all, a PICC is the least invasive central line you can place, but all options must be weighed so that ALL of the disciplines can provide the best access for the patient collaboratively, instead of fighting amoungst yourselves about it.  I do most of the physician teaching around my hospital.  You are correct when you say that doc's are research driven.  Most are, but you cannot always be the one running around like a chicken with your head cut off.  It will drive you crazy.

Heather 

 

allenmob
Put in about 500 PICCs a
Put in about 500 PICCs a year in long term acute care facilities.  Rarely see DVTs!  Why would my experience be different from what is stated here?  See more badly infiltrated IV's in LTACs than DVTs. (As well as pts being stuck 15 times before calling for a PICC.)
DML RN
The Allen article doesn't

The Allen article doesn't say if they define thrombosis as a total occlusion of the vein or just the finding of a clot in the vein,and the gist of the writing is vein preservation for future dialysis patients. The authors note that the vast majority of theses 'thromboses' are asymptomatic. Two important findings in the article,however,are that there was a huge difference in rates between cephalic (57%) and basilic (10%) but NO difference found based on catheter size.

Another one:

Ong B.,et al (2006) Peripherally inserted central catheters and upper extremity deep vein thrombosis. Australasian Radiology: 50,451-454

Their numbers:7% symptomatic thrombosis in PICC inserted for chemo vs 1% for non-chemo reasons;a higher incidence in the left (63%) versus right;a symptomatic rate of 2.6%.  One important finding of these authors was that of the patients who developped a DVT in the arm,had the PICC replaced and were then anticoagulated (LMWH) only one developped a second DVT and that one was iffy.

My take on it all--PICC placement,like any procedure,has its incumbent complications and that can't be changed. What we do have control over is how we synthesize the available evidence while considering the risks vs benefits,and how we use this to guide our assessment and implementation decisions.  

Karen Day
Karen Day's picture
cheryl, could I get a copy

cheryl, could I get a copy of your assessment tool?

[email protected]

thanks.

 

pjean
Cheryl, I would also

Cheryl,

I would also appreciate your assessment tool if possible. Please email if you don't mind(or maybe you could post to the downloads section of this web-site)

[email protected]

Thanks so much

Trish

Diane C Lauer
Cheryl, Would you please

Cheryl,

Would you please forward your PICC assessment tool?

Thanks,

[email protected] 

Celia Brown

jadahl
[quote=Lorelle] Good
[quote=Lorelle]

Good afternoon colleagues,

 I have a critical care physician who is being particularly difficult getting on board with our Early Assessment PICC Program.  More specifically, he states that there is a significant amount of research available to support NOT using PICC’s because of the unknown incidence of risk for upper extremity DVT. 

I have found multiple research articles that conclude that Venous Thrombosis is a significant complication of PICC placement, and that it occurs more frequently than previously recognized.I am looking for some professional help in approaching this physician with some alternate research that promotes the use of PICC lines.

Is there anything out there that says the incidence of DVT is LOW? I believe that if appropriate assessment of risk factors are taken, as well as appropriate management of the PICC line including passive range of motion, the incidence of upper extremity DVT will be low - however this physician is RESEARCH driven and I need some help.  Thank you for your time and consideration.

Out of curiosity...... Kathy - What would you say to this physician?Lynn - What would you say?Thanks! 

Here are some of my sources that say that the incidence of DVT with PICC's is high:

Chemaly, R. F. , de Parres, J. B., Rehmn, S. J. et al. (2002). Venous thrombosis associated with peripherally inserted central catheters: A retrospective analysis of the cleveland clinic experience. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 34, 1179-83. 

Allen, A. W., Mergargell, J. L.. Brown, D. B et al. (2000). Venous thrombosis associated with the placement of peripherally inserted central catheters. JVIR,11, 1309-14.

Gonsalves, C. F., Eschelman, D. J., Sullivan, K. L., DuBois, N, & Bonn, J. (2003). Incidence of central vein stenosis and occlusion following upper extremity PICC and port placement.  Cardiovascular Interventional Radiology, 26, 123-127.

Would you send me a copy of your tool also?  [email protected]  Thanks

jane dahl, crni

jadahl
May I have a copy of your
May I have a copy of your assessment tool also?  [email protected] - thanks so much

jane dahl, crni

Log in or register to post comments