To PICC or not to PICC? A cross-sectional survey of vascular access practices in the ICU

Abstract

Purpose: Vascular access patterns in the intensive care unit (ICU) have shifted from non-tunneled central venous catheters (CVCs) towards peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). We evaluated perceptions of critical care practitioners regarding these devices and variation in evidence-based practice.

Materials: A 35-question survey on ICU vascular access was deployed in 13 Michigan hospitals. Descriptive statistics summarized responses. Differences in utilization, perceptions and evidence-based practices between PICCs and CVCs, by participant and site-level characteristics, were assessed.

Results: 314 of 621 eligible providers responded to the survey (response rate 51%). 15% of providers reported not routinely using ultrasound when placing CVCs. Respondents whom were trainees, from larger hospitals, and from closed ICUs were more likely to use ultrasound (p < 0.001). Additionally, 21% of respondents stated they did not specify number of CVC lumens, while 46% did not specify number of PICC lumens (p < 0.001). The likelihood of specifying PICC lumens increased when vascular access protocols were in place (p = 0.001). 2/3 of respondents (n = 173, 66%) stated more research on ICU vascular access was needed.

Conclusion: Variation in guideline-based vascular access practices exists in the ICU. Defined local protocols may improve guideline adherence. Studies evaluating vascular access decisions and patient safety in the ICU appear necessary.

Keywords: CALBSI; CVCs; Intensive care; PICCs; VTE; Vascular access.