Bacterial sensitivity to erythromycin: two years experience (1953-1954).

S. Schneierson

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Safety of peripheral administration of vasopressor medications: A systematic review

David H Tian,Claire Smyth,Gerben Keijzers,Stephen Pj Macdonald,Sandra Peake,Andrew Udy,Anthony Delaney

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.13406

Abstract:Objective: Vasopressor medications have traditionally been administered via central venous catheters (CVCs), primarily due to concerns of peripheral extravasation of vasoconstrictive medications. Recent studies have suggested that vasopressor administration via peripheral intravenous catheters (PiVCs) may be a feasible and safe alternative. This systematic review evaluates the safety of delivering vasopressor medications via PiVCs. Methods: We performed a systematic review to assess the frequency of complications associated with the delivery of vasopressors via PiVCs. A literature search for prospective and retrospective studies of vasopressor infusions in adults was performed. We included studies of continuous infusions of vasopressor medications (noradrenaline, adrenaline, metaraminol, phenylephrine, dopamine and vasopressin) delivered via a PiVCs that included at least 20 patients. Data on patient factors, cannulation approach, monitoring protocols, vasopressor dosing and dilutions and adverse events were collected and summarised. Results: Seven studies were identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, including 1382 patients. No study fulfilled all of the validity criteria. Noradrenaline was the most commonly administered agent (n = 702 episodes of administration), followed by phenylephrine (n = 546), dopamine (n = 108), metaraminol (n = 74) and vasopressin and adrenaline (<5 patients). Mean duration of infusion was 22 h (95% confidence interval [CI] 8-36 h). Extravasation occurred in 3.4% (95% CI 2.5-4.7%) of patients. There were no reported episodes of tissue necrosis or limb ischaemia. All extravasation events were successfully managed conservatively or with vasodilatory medications. Conclusions: Reports of the administration of vasopressors via PiVCs, when given for a limited duration, under close observation, suggest that extravasation is uncommon and is unlikely to lead to major complications.
Safety of Peripherally Infused Sympathomimetic Vasopressors in the Intensive Care Unit and Emergency Department

Albert Zichichi,Ryan Wallace,Jessica Daniell,Ginger Rouse,Paul Ahearn,Mahmoud Ammar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10600280241284796

IF: 3.4628

2024-10-18

Annals of Pharmacotherapy

Abstract:Annals of Pharmacotherapy, Ahead of Print. Background:Sympathomimetic vasopressors may be administered through a peripheral catheter, but there are limited data available on the safety of peripheral use.Objective:The purpose of this study was to analyze the safety of peripherally infused sympathomimetic vasopressors.Methods:A multicenter, retrospective observational study was conducted to evaluate patients who received peripheral vasopressors. The study's primary outcome was to assess the incidence of extravasation during the administration of peripheral vasopressors. Secondary outcomes include avoidance of central venous catheter (CVC) placement and institution protocol deviations.Results:There were 198 patients included in the study, of which 142 patients received norepinephrine, 48 patients received phenylephrine, and 8 patients received epinephrine peripherally. Extravasation events occurred in 11 (5.6%) patients. Seven patients required a pharmacologic antidote and 10 patients required a warm compress. No significant differences were seen in characteristics of patients who extravasated compared with those who did not. Protocol deviations identified during the study included 24 (12.1%) patients receiving doses above the protocol maximum, 19 (9.6%) with a body mass index above the protocol maximum, and 45 (22.7%) patients receiving peripheral vasopressor over 24 hours. The majority of patients were able to avoid CVC placement (59.1%).Conclusion and Relevance:Peripherally infused sympathomimetic vasopressors are safe to administer up to 24 hours with a low incidence of extravasation events while avoiding CVC placement in the majority of patients.

pharmacology & pharmacy
Complications from Administration of Vasopressors Through Peripheral Venous Catheters: An Observational Study

Kamal Medlej,Amin Antoine Kazzi,Ahel El Hajj Chehade,Mothana Saad Eldine,Ali Chami,Rana Bachir,Dina Zebian,Gilbert Abou Dagher

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2017.09.007

Abstract:Background: The placement of a central venous catheter for the administration of vasopressors is still recommended and required by many institutions because of concern about complications associated with peripheral administration of vasopressors. Objective: Our aim was to determine the incidence of complications from the administration of vasopressors through peripheral venous catheters (PVC) in patients with circulatory shock, and to identify the factors associated with these complications. Methods: This was a prospective, observational study conducted in the emergency department (ED) of a tertiary care medical center. Patients presenting to the ED with circulatory shock and in whom a vasopressor was started through a PVC were included. Research fellows examined the i.v. access site for complications twice daily during the period of peripheral vasopressor administration, then daily up to 48 h after treatment discontinuation or until the patient expired. Results: Of the 55 patients that were recruited, 3 (5.45% overall, 6% of patients receiving norepinephrine) developed complications; none were major. Two developed local extravasation and one developed local thrombophlebitis. All three complications occurred during the vasopressor infusion, none in the 48 h after discontinuation, and none required any medical or surgical intervention. Two of the three complications occurred in the hand, and all occurred in patients receiving norepinephrine and with 20-gauge catheters. Conclusions: The incidence of complications from the administration of vasopressors through a PVC is small and did not result in significant morbidity in this study. Larger prospective studies are needed to better determine the factors that are associated with these complications, and identify patients in whom this practice is safe.
Comparison of extravasation events related to the peripheral administration of vasopressors prior to and following implementation of an institutional protocol

Allison C. Fabick,Jaclyn M. Hawn,Katharine W. Barwick,Erin R. Weeda,Andrew J. Goodwin,Carolyn M. Bell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jac5.1844

2023-06-26

Abstract:Following adequate fluid resuscitation, vasopressors are often utilized to maintain perfusion in shock states. Traditionally, vasopressors are administered via a central venous catheter (CVC) to attempt to minimize extravasation events. New literature advocates for peripheral vasopressor administration when CVC placement could lead to a delay in care. The purpose of this study was to compare extravasation events during vasopressor administration via a peripheral intravenous line (PIV) prior to and following the implementation of an institutional peripheral vasopressor protocol. This was a single‐center, retrospective, observational study conducted at a large academic medical center. Adult patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) from September 2018 to 2020 who received continuous infusion vasopressors were included. Vasopressors evaluated were norepinephrine, epinephrine, phenylephrine, dopamine, and vasopressin. The primary outcome evaluated extravasation events prior to and following the implementation of an institutional peripheral vasopressor protocol. Of the 3430 patients included, 1532 and 1898 patients were in the pre‐ and post‐protocol implementation groups. Following protocol implementation, there was an increase in PIV utilization, improvement in ultrasound‐guided PIV placement (17% vs. 26%, p < 0.001), and line assessment every 2 h (74% vs. 90%, p < 0.001). Less non‐compliance in vasopressor infusion rates (40% vs. 24%, p < 0.001) and PIV location (18% vs. 10%, p < 0.001) were also observed following protocol implementation. A total of 58 extravasation events occurred in both groups, 15 confirmed events and 43 suspected events. Following protocol implementation, there were less extravasation events (2.4% [n = 37] pre‐ vs. 1.1% [n = 21] post‐protocol p = 0.003). Following the implementation of an institutional protocol, there was a reduction in extravasation events, an improvement in ultrasound‐guided PIV placement, and the use of peripheral infusion practices associated with increased safety. Additional studies are needed to determine the optimal peripheral vasopressor protocol to reduce CVC use and maintain reduced extravasation events.
The development of a nurse-driven protocol for the safe administration of vasopressors through peripheral intravenous catheters

Laura Padrone,Janet Galiczewski,Bernadette Amitrano,Seth Koenig,Mangala Narasimhan,Paul H. Mayo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5430/ijh.v4n1p36

2018-03-08

International Journal of Healthcare

Abstract:Aim: The purpose of this quality improvement project was to develop a nurse-driven protocol to provide a safer, quicker, and less complication-prone alternative for the administration of vasopressors.Background: The use of vasopressor medication is a common life saving intervention used to achieve hemodynamic stability in critically ill patients. Vasopressor infusions are routinely administered through central venous catheters (CVC) for fear that extravasation into subcutaneous tissue will result in ischemic injury. There are many potential complications of obtaining central venous access for vasopressor use, including pneumothoraces, arterial punctures and hematomas.Design: Quality improvement project.Methods: An interdisciplinary team developed a written protocol for the administration of vasopressors through peripheral intravenous (PIV) catheters based on the available scientific evidence. Key components of this quality improvement project were patient safety, a team approach and skilled monitoring of the infusion site. Critical care nurses were responsible for the line insertion, maintenance and identification of possible extravasation. All catheters placed were confirmed by ultrasonography and if extravasation of medication was suspected, the extravasation protocol was followed without delay.Results: The protocol developed was utilized in a study by Cardenas-Garcia et al. (2015). Extravasation occurred in 19 of 734 patients (2%) without any tissue injury following the use of the extravasation protocol. This evidence-based protocol for peripherally administered vasopressors decreased central line use and the potential complications from the placement of CVCs. Strict adherence to this evidence-based nurse-driven protocol was essential for the safe administration of vasopressors via PIV access.Conclusion/Clinical relevance: Peripheral administration of vasopressors has many beneficial implications for nursing practice. A nurse-driven protocol for peripheral vasopressors can eliminate the need for CVCs, which will reduce the incidence of central line-associated blood stream infections and decrease the number of central line days. This also may eliminate potential complications from CVC placement. Lastly, peripherally administered vasopressors may prevent a delay in treatment often experienced with placement of a central line.
Safety of peripheral intravenous administration of vasoactive medication

Jose Cardenas-Garcia,Karen F Schaub,Yuly G Belchikov,Mangala Narasimhan,Seth J Koenig,Paul H Mayo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.2394

Abstract:Background: Central venous access is commonly performed to administer vasoactive medication. The administration of vasoactive medication via peripheral intravenous access is a potential method of reducing the need for central venous access. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of vasoactive medication administered through peripheral intravenous access. Methods: Over a 20-month period starting in September 2012, we monitored the use of vasoactive medication via peripheral intravenous access in an 18-bed medical intensive care unit. Norepinephrine, dopamine, and phenylephrine were all approved for use through peripheral intravenous access. Results: A total of 734 patients (age 72 ± 15 years, male/female 398/336, SAPS II score 75 ± 15) received vasoactive medication via peripheral intravenous access 783 times. Vasoactive medication used was norepinephrine (n = 506), dopamine (n = 101), and phenylephrine (n = 176). The duration of vasoactive medication via peripheral intravenous access was 49 ± 22 hours. Extravasation of the peripheral intravenous access during administration of vasoactive medication occurred in 19 patients (2%) without any tissue injury following treatment, with local phentolamine injection and application of local nitroglycerin paste. There were 95 patients (13%) receiving vasoactive medication through peripheral intravenous access who eventually required central intravenous access. Conclusions: Administration of norepinephrine, dopamine, or phenylephrine by peripheral intravenous access was feasible and safe in this single-center medical intensive care unit. Extravasation from the peripheral intravenous line was uncommon, and phentolamine with nitroglycerin paste were effective in preventing local ischemic injury. Clinicians should not regard the use of vasoactive medication is an automatic indication for central venous access.
Safety and efficacy of peripheral versus centrally administered vasopressor infusion: A single-centre retrospective observational study

Annaliese Stolz,Rachel Efendy,Yogesh Apte,Alison Craswell,Frances Lin,Mahesh Ramanan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2021.08.005

IF: 3.265

2021-09-01

Australian Critical Care

Abstract:BackgroundShock affects one-third of patients admitted to intensive care and is associated with increased mortality. Vasopressor medications are used to maintain blood pressure in shock. Central venous catheters are associated with serious complications and pose logistical difficulties for insertion. Delivery of vasopressors via peripheral intravenous cannula may be a safe alternative.MethodsThis is a retrospective cohort study comparing safety profile and outcomes of vasopressor delivery via peripheral and central routes in critically ill patients over a 12-month period in a mixed medical-surgical intensive care unit. Demographics, clinical characteristics, treatments, and safety outcome data were extracted from medical records. Patients were classified into three groups: vasopressor infusions via peripheral intravenous cannula, combined peripheral intravenous cannula followed by central venous catheter, and central venous catheter only. Groups were compared using the Kruskal–Wallis test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. The impact of duration of vasopressor infusion on complication rates was assessed using logistic regression.ResultsWe identified 212 patients who received vasopressor infusion, 39 received via peripheral only (Group 1), 155 via peripheral followed by central (Group 2), and 18 via central only (Group 3). There were some baseline differences between groups. Group 1 had the lowest median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III score (64, interquartile range = 44–77), and Group 3, the highest (86, interquartile range = 57–101). Duration of vasopressor infusion was shortest in Group 1 and longer in Groups 2 and 3. There were no major complications; however, minor complications such as leakage, extravasation, and erythema occurred in 41% of Group 1 and 28% of Group 2 patients. Duration of peripheral vasopressor infusion was not associated with an increased risk of complications.ConclusionsAdministration of vasopressor infusions for short duration in critically ill patients via a peripheral venous cannula may be feasible, with low rates of complications, and offers a safe alternative to central venous access.
Max-min hybrid precoding in millimeter wave cooperative MISO systems

Chang-Shen Lee,W. Chung

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICC.2016.7510843

2016-05-22

Abstract:Technologies in millimeter wave (mmWave) communications have gained increasing attention because of its potential to provide substantially extra bandwidth. The main challenges of mmWave communications include high propagation attenuation and sparse scattering propagation channel. A promising technique to cope with propagation attenuation is to adopt antenna array, and use the hybrid transceiver architecture to exploit the array gain for lower hardware costs. On the other hand, the sparse scattering channel causes large fluctuations in link quality. Cooperative transmission is an effective approach for the link quality fluctuation problem, in which multiple Txs can transmit to the same Rx of poor receiving quality. The design of precoder for cooperative transmission in hybrid precoding architecture is crucial in improving system performance. In this paper, we propose the two-stage hybrid precoder design for cooperative multiple input single output (MISO) systems where the design goal is to ensure every Rx has good receiving quality. Because the number of Rx supported by a Tx is limited, we also propose a low computational complexity Tx-Rx pairing algorithm. Numerical results show that performances of the proposed algorithms are near-optimal, and outperform existing hybrid precoding algorithms.
[Safety of administration of norepinephrine through peripheral vein line in patients with septic shock]

Fang Feng,Weiwei Yang,Zhengxin Zhang,Chenghua Mu,Min Li,Yu Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn121430-20200716-00528

Abstract:Objective: To analysis the risk factors and safety of administration of norepinephrine (NE) via peripheral vein line (PVL) in patients with septic shock. Methods: A single-center retrospective study was conducted. According to the Lanzhou University Second Hospital information system (HIS) and nursing adverse events report cards, patients with septic shock administrated with NE via PVL to correct the hypotension from January 1st 2015 to December 31st, 2019 were enrolled. The patients' general information, placement location of peripheral venous catheter and venousneedle type, characteristics of NE usage and patient general condition when extravasation occurred were collected. The univariate analysis and Logistic regression were used to analyze risk factors associated with extravasation. Also, the receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC curve) was drawn, and the predictive value of risk factors for extravasation was analyzed. Results: A total of 1 022 cases with NE were enrolled. After a preliminary screening, a total of 910 cases with NE were used to correct low blood pressure, including 116 cases of peripheral venous infusion. The average age was (52.91±18.69) years old, with majority of female (77 cases, 66.4%). Basic diseases were mainly chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, 100 cases, 86.2%), followed by hypertension (91 cases, 78.4%), coronary heart disease (87 cases, 75.0%), type 2 diabetes (74 cases, 63.8%) respectively, the primary disease was septic shock in 109 cases (94.0%). A total of 147 peripheral venous catheters were inserted, and the most common site of puncture was the forearm [78.9% (116/147)], followed by the hand [12.2% (18/147)] and the median cubital vein [8.8% (13/147)]. 89.9% of the needles were 20 G in diameter, and 75 cases (64.7%) were converted to central venous catheters (CVC) during subsequent treatment due to continuous infusion of NE. Six patients (5.2%) had extravasation, the median time of extravasation was 29 (23-39) hours, and the median time of NE was 23 (11-53) hours, including 2 patients with an infusion concentration of 60 mg/L and 4 patients with an infusion concentration of 120 mg/L.The infusion speed was 0.5-1.0 μg×kg-1×min-1, and the average speed of infusion was (0.75±0.04) μg×kg-1×min-1 when extravasation. Univariate and binary Logistic regression analysis showed that the risk factors related to the occurrence of extravasation included: (1) patient factors: the presence of basic diseases, hypertension [odds ratio (OR) = 3.11, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) was 3.09-3.12, P = 0.001] and edema (OR = 1.79, 95%CI was 1.32-2.99, P = 0.032). (2) Factors of infusion fluid itself: long-term (> 24 hours) infusion (OR = 2.91, 95%CI was 1.04-5.96, P = 0.040), infusion concentration > 60 mg/L (OR = 1.88, 95%CI was 1.32-3.99, P = 0.024), infusion speed > 0.3 μg×kg-1×min-1 (OR = 2.43, 95%CI was 2.38-2.51, P = 0.029) and diameter of needles < 20 G (OR = 3.11, 95%CI was 3.09-3.22, P = 0.033). (3) Medical personnel factors: lack of observation and assessment (OR = 1.09, 95%CI was 1.03-6.77, P = 0.043). The ROC curve analysis showed that: edema, long-term infusion (> 24 hours), infusion rate > 0.3 μg×kg-1×min-1 and diameter of needles < 20 G had a certain predictive value for extravasation of NE through peripheral venous infusion in patients with septic shock, the area under ROC curve (AUC) was 0.610, 0.762, 0.672, 0.629, 95%CI was 0.508-0.713, 0.675-0.849, 0.571-0.772, 0.525-0.732, and P values were 0.044, 0.000, 0.002, 0.019, respectively. Conclusions: Hypertension, edema, long-term infusion (> 24 hours), infusion concentration > 60 mg/L, infusion speed > 0.3 μg×kg-1×min-1, diameter of needle < 20 G, and lack of observation and evaluation by medical staff regularly were risk factors affecting the safety of peripheral intravenous NE in patients with septic shock. Peripheral NE should be avoided in the presence of the above risk factors.
Effect of acetazolamide on pulmonary and muscle gas exchange during normoxic and hypoxic exercise

Amy M. Jonk,Irene van den Berg,I. Olfert,D. Wray,T. Arai,S. Hopkins,P. Wagner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2006.120949

2007-03-01

Journal of Physiology

Abstract:Acetazolamide (ACZ) is used to prevent acute mountain sickness at altitude. Because it could affect O2 transport in several different and potentially conflicting ways, we examined its effects on pulmonary and muscle gas exchange and acid–base status during cycle exercise at ∼30, 50 and 90% in normoxia (F IO 2 = 0.2093) and acute hypoxia (F IO 2 = 0.125). In a double‐blind, order‐balanced, crossover design, six healthy, trained men (normoxic = 59 ml kg−1 min−1) exercised at both F IO 2 values after ACZ (3 doses of 250 mg, 8 h apart) and placebo. One week later this protocol was repeated using the other drug (placebo or ACZ). We measured cardiac output , leg blood flow (LBF), and muscle and pulmonary gas exchange, the latter using the multiple inert gas elimination technique. ACZ did not significantly affect , , LBF or muscle gas exchange. As expected, ACZ led to lower arterial and venous blood [HCO3−], pH and lactate levels (P < 0.05), and increased ventilation (P < 0.05). In both normoxia and hypoxia, ACZ resulted in higher arterial PO2 and saturation and a lower alveolar–arterial PO2 difference (AaDO2) due to both less mismatch and less diffusion limitation (P < 0.05). In summary, ACZ improved arterial oxygenation during exercise, due to both greater ventilation and more efficient pulmonary gas exchange. However, muscle gas exchange was unaffected.
Peripheral Administration of Norepinephrine: A Prospective Observational Study

Jason R Yerke,Eduardo Mireles-Cabodevila,Alyssa Y Chen,Stephanie N Bass,Anita J Reddy,Seth R Bauer,Lynne Kokoczka,Siddharth Dugar,Ajit Moghekar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2023.08.019

IF: 9.6

Chest

Abstract:Background: Historically, norepinephrine has been administered through a central venous catheter (CVC) because of concerns about the risk of ischemic tissue injury if extravasation from a peripheral IV catheter (PIVC) occurs. Recently, several reports have suggested that peripheral administration of norepinephrine may be safe. Research question: Can a protocol for peripheral norepinephrine administration safely reduce the number of days a CVC is in use and frequency of CVC placement? Study design and methods: This was a prospective observational cohort study conducted in the medical ICU at a quaternary care academic medical center. A protocol for peripheral norepinephrine administration was developed and implemented in the medical ICU at the study site. The protocol was recommended for use in patients who met prespecified criteria, but was used at the treating clinician's discretion. All adult patients admitted to the medical ICU receiving norepinephrine through a PIVC from February 2019 through June 2021 were included. Results: The primary outcome was the number of days of CVC use that were avoided per patient, and the secondary safety outcomes included the incidence of extravasation events. Six hundred thirty-five patients received peripherally administered norepinephrine. The median number of CVC days avoided per patient was 1 (interquartile range, 0-2 days per patient). Of the 603 patients who received norepinephrine peripherally as the first norepinephrine exposure, 311 patients (51.6%) never required CVC insertion. Extravasation of norepinephrine occurred in 35 patients (75.8 events/1,000 d of PIVC infusion [95% CI, 52.8-105.4 events/1,000 d of PIVC infusion]). Most extravasations caused no or minimal tissue injury. No patient required surgical intervention. Interpretation: This study suggests that implementing a protocol for peripheral administration of norepinephrine safely can avoid 1 CVC day in the average patient, with 51.6% of patients not requiring CVC insertion. No patient experienced significant ischemic tissue injury with the protocol used. These data support performance of a randomized, prospective, multicenter study to characterize the net benefits of peripheral norepinephrine administration compared with norepinephrine administration through a CVC.
Adverse events associated with administration of vasopressor medications through a peripheral intravenous catheter: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Victoria S. Owen,Brianna K. Rosgen,Stephana J. Cherak,Andre Ferland,Henry T. Stelfox,Kirsten M. Fiest,Daniel J. Niven

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-021-03553-1

IF: 15.1

2021-04-16

Critical Care

Abstract:Abstract Background It is unclear whether vasopressors can be safely administered through a peripheral intravenous (PIV). Systematic review and meta-analysis methodology was used to examine the incidence of local anatomic adverse events associated with PIV vasopressor administration in patients of any age cared for in any acute care environment. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were searched without restriction from inception to October 2019. References of included studies and related reviews, as well as relevant conference proceedings were also searched. Studies were included if they were: (1) cohort, quasi-experimental, or randomized controlled trial study design; (2) conducted in humans of any age or clinical setting; and (3) reported on local anatomic adverse events associated with PIV vasopressor administration. Risk of bias was assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials or the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for prevalence studies where appropriate. Incidence estimates were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were used to explore sources of heterogeneity. Results Twenty-three studies were included in the systematic review, of which 16 and 7 described adults and children, respectively. Meta-analysis from 11 adult studies including 16,055 patients demonstrated a pooled incidence proportion of adverse events associated with PIV vasopressor administration as 1.8% (95% CI 0.1–4.8%, I 2 = 93.7%). In children, meta-analysis from four studies and 388 patients demonstrated a pooled incidence proportion of adverse events as 3.3% (95% CI 0.0–10.1%, I 2 = 82.4%). Subgroup analyses did not detect any statistically significant effects associated with stratification based on differences in clinical location, risk of bias or design between studies, PIV location and size, or vasopressor type or duration. Most studies had high or some concern for risk of bias. Conclusion The incidence of adverse events associated with PIV vasopressor administration is low. Additional research is required to examine the effects of PIV location and size, vasopressor type and dose, and patient characteristics on the safety of PIV vasopressor administration.

critical care medicine
Complication of vasopressor infusion through peripheral venous catheter: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Quincy K. Tran,Gaurika Mester,Vera Bzhilyanskaya,Leenah Z. Afridi,Sanketh Andhavarapu,Zain Alam,Austin Widjaja,Brooke Andersen,Ann Matta,Ali Pourmand

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2020.09.047

IF: 3.6

2020-11-01

The American Journal of Emergency Medicine

Abstract:<h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Background</h3><p>Vasopressors are mainstay treatment for patients in shock and are usually infused through central venous catheters (CVCs). However, CVCs are associated with risk of infection or delay from the needs of confirmation of placement. Infusing vasopressor through peripheral venous catheter (PIVs) could be an alternative in the Emergency Departments (ED) but data regarding complications is inconclusive. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis to assess literature involving prevalence of complications from infusing vasopressors via PIVs.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Methods</h3><p>We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Scopus databases from beginnings to 02/02/2020 to identify relevant randomized control trials, cohort, case-control studies. We excluded case reports. Authors assessed studies' quality with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Kappa score was used to assess interrater agreement. Outcome was complications as direct results from infusing vasopressors through PIVs.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Results</h3><p>We identified 325 articles and included 9 studies after reviewing 16 full text articles. Our analysis included 1835 patients whose mean age was 63 (Standard Deviation 12) years and 48% was female. There were 122 (7%) complications, of which 117 (96%) were minor. The meta-analysis with random effects showed the pooled prevalence of complications as 0.086 (95%CI 0.031–0.21). Studies reporting infusion safety guidelines had significantly lower prevalence of complications (0.029, 95%CI 0.018–0.045), compared to those not reporting a safety guideline (0.12, 95%CI 0.038–0.30, <em>p</em> = 0.024).</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Conclusion</h3><p>There was low prevalence of complications as a direct result from infusing vasopressors through PIVs. Studies with safety guidelines were associated with significantly lower prevalence of complications. Further studies are needed to confirm our observations.</p>
[A comparative study of hepatic cholestasis after infusion of long chain triglycerides and a mixture of medium and long chain triglycerides].

E. Jaurrieta,S. Biondo,A. Rafecas,P. Moreno-Llorente,J. Murgoitio,J. Llop,J. Fabregat,J. Figueras

1991-05-01

Nutrición Hospitalaria

Abstract:A randomized, double blind prospective study made on surgical patients who required parenteral nutrition during a 10-day period, with complete fasting. The patients were required to show a normal hepatic function measured by gamma-GT, alkaline phosphatase (FA), normal bilirubin and ALT. The evolution of the cholestasis parameters was observed on days 0, 1, 3, 8 and 10. An increase in gamma-GT was observed in the groups. This was much greater in the group with LCT (p<0.005) on the tenth day than in the MCT/LCT group. FA increased only in the LCT group, and was statistically significant (p<0.001) on the tenth day compared with the MCT/LCT group.
Safety of Phenylephrine Infusion Through Peripheral Intravenous Catheter in the Neurological Intensive Care Unit

Sudhir Datar,Eddy Gutierrez,Adam Schertz,Vidula Vachharajani

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0885066617712214

Abstract:Objective: The traditional approach for infusing vasopressors is to insert central venous catheters, which is associated with several complications. Phenylephrine is a commonly used vasopressor in the neurologic intensive care unit (neuro ICU), and due to its modest potency, the risk of local tissue injury from extravasation may be overestimated. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety of phenylephrine infusion through peripheral intravenous catheter (PIV) in the neuro ICU. Patients and methods: Retrospective review of all consecutive adults admitted to the neuro ICU receiving phenylephrine infusion via PIV at a tertiary academic medical center from September 2012 to November 2015. Results: Two hundred seventy-seven patients with a mean age of 65 years (standard deviation [SD]: ±15) were included in the final analysis. The most common indications for phenylephrine use were hemodynamic augmentation (40%) and postoperative hypotension (32%). The most common location of PIV-infusing phenylephrine was proximal upper extremity (50%). The most common PIV gauge was 20 (41%). The mean maximum dose of phenylephrine was 79 μg/min (SD: ±53, range: 5-200) or 1.04 μg/kg/min (SD: ±0.74, range: 0.07-3.49) and was continued for a mean duration of 19 hours (SD: ±18, range: 1-129). Nine (3%) total episodes of PIV infiltration were noted, none requiring intervention for significant tissue injury or limb ischemia. Conclusion: Infusion of phenylephrine through PIV is safe when used in moderate doses for a short time and can be considered in lieu of placing a central line solely for this purpose.
Peripheral Use of Vasopressors in Shock: Clinical Considerations and Recommendations for Use in Obstetrics

Luis D. Pacheco,Karin A. Fox,Corey C. Clifford,Faranak Behnia,Melissa E. Bauer,Antonio F. Saad,George R. Saade

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2435-1000

2024-10-30

American Journal of Perinatology

Abstract:Objective This study aimed to evaluate the safety of peripheral administration of vasopressor agents among patients with circulatory shock. Study Design We reviewed the published literature evaluating the use of peripheral norepinephrine in patients with shock and proposed a protocol for use in labor and delivery units. Results Peripheral administration of norepinephrine is a safe and potentially lifesaving intervention for patients in labor and delivery with extremely low complication rates. Conclusion Adoption of a protocol for peripheral administration of vasopressors in labor and delivery is safe and may prevent life threatening delays in hemodynamic resuscitation. Key Points Administering vasopressors through a peripheral line is safe and helps avoid delays in care. An established protocol is essential for the safe peripheral administration of vasopressors. Understanding continuous blood pressure monitoring is crucial for managing critically ill patients. Received: 15 July 2024 Accepted: 05 October 2024 Article published online: 29 October 2024 © 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved. Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc. 333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

pediatrics,obstetrics & gynecology
Implementation of a Protocol for Peripheral Intravenous Norepinephrine: Does It Save Central Line Insertion, Is It Safe?

Kari M. Cape,Laureen G. Jones,Michele L. Weber,Jessica L. Elefritz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0897190020977712

2020-12-03

Journal of Pharmacy Practice

Abstract:Background Central venous catheters (CVC) are generally recommended for norepinephrine administration due to risk of tissue ischemia. Early resuscitation, leading to decreased infusion duration, may minimize the need for CVCs if norepinephrine can be administered safely through a peripheral intravenous catheter (PIV). Objective A protocol was developed for peripheral administration. Safety, CVC placement, and adherence with protocol elements were evaluated. Methods A single-center, prospective, observational pilot was conducted for patients receiving norepinephrine in the Medical Intensive Care Unit (MICU). Patients were considered for PIV administration of low dose norepinephrine for less than 24 hours based on clinical status and anticipated short-term use. Protocolized interventions for PIV’s included criteria for gauge, number, and site as well as visual inspection and evaluation every 2 hours. Data was collected on protocol elements to evaluate safety and effectiveness of the protocol. Results There were 316 occurrences of norepinephrine infusions including 92 via PIV (patients may have received multiple treatments). 34% (31/92) did not require a CVC. 3 had infiltrated PIV’s without tissue injury. Maximum dose adherence was 73%. 97% of infusions ran less than 24 hours. Nursing adherence included: 91% gauge, 65% proper site, 99% adequate number, 49% blood return on initiation, 55% ongoing blood return, and 61% IV site checked. Conclusion Our results suggest that norepinephrine is safe to administer through a PIV at low doses for less than 24 hours using a protocol. Prevention of unnecessary CVC insertion is beneficial by minimizing the risk of central line complications thus improving patient morbidity.
The Association of Vasopressor Administration through a Midline Catheter with Catheter-related Complications

Hayley B Gershengorn,Tanima Basu,Jennifer K Horowitz,Elizabeth McLaughlin,Elizabeth Munroe,Megan O'Malley,Lama Hsaiky,Scott A Flanders,Steven J Bernstein,David Paje,Vineet Chopra,Hallie C Prescott

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.202209-814OC

Abstract:Rationale: Little is known about the safety of infusing vasopressors through a midline catheter. Objectives: To evaluate safety outcomes after vasopressor administration through a midline. Methods: We conducted a cohort study of adults admitted to 39 hospitals in Michigan (December 2017-March 2022) who received vasopressors while either a midline or peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) was in place. Patients receiving vasopressors through a midline were compared with those receiving vasopressors through a PICC and, separately, to those with midlines in place but who received vasopressors through a different catheter. We used descriptive statistics to characterize and compare cohort characteristics. Multivariable mixed effects logistic regression models were fit to determine the association between vasopressor administration through a midline with outcomes, primarily catheter-related complications (bloodstream infection, superficial thrombophlebitis, exit site infection, or catheter occlusion). Results: Our cohort included 287 patients with midlines through which vasopressors were administered, 1,660 with PICCs through which vasopressors were administered, and 884 patients with midlines who received vasopressors through a separate catheter. Age (median [interquartile range]: 68.7 [58.6-75.7], 66.6 [57.1-75.0], and 67.6 [58.7-75.8] yr) and gender (percentage female: 50.5%, 47.3%, and 43.8%) were similar in all groups. The frequency of catheter-related complications was lower in patients with midlines used for vasopressors than PICCs used for vasopressors (5.2% vs. 13.4%; P < 0.001) but similar to midlines with vasopressor administration through a different device (5.2% vs. 6.3%; P = 0.49). After adjustment, administration of vasopressors through a midline was not associated with catheter-related complications compared with PICCs with vasopressors (adjusted odds ratios [aOR], 0.65 [95% confidence interval, 0.31-1.33]; P = 0.23) or midlines with vasopressors elsewhere (aOR, 0.85 [0.46-1.58]; P = 0.59). Midlines used for vasopressors were associated with greater risk of systemic thromboembolism (vs. PICCs with vasopressors: aOR, 2.69 [1.31-5.49]; P = 0.008; vs. midlines with vasopressors elsewhere: aOR, 2.42 [1.29-4.54]; P = 0.008) but not thromboses restricted to the ipsilateral upper extremity (vs. PICCs with vasopressors: aOR, 2.35 [0.83-6.63]; P = 0.10; model did not converge for vs. midlines with vasopressors elsewhere). Conclusions: We found no significant association of vasopressor administration through a midline with catheter-related complications. However, we identified increased odds of systemic (but not ipsilateral upper extremity) venous thromboembolism warranting further evaluation.
Management of noncytotoxic extravasation injuries: A focused update on medications, treatment strategies, and peripheral administration of vasopressors and hypertonic saline

Sylvia S Stefanos,Tyree H Kiser,Robert MacLaren,Scott W Mueller,Paul M Reynolds

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/phar.2794

Pharmacotherapy

Abstract:Extravasation is the leakage of intravenous solutions into surrounding tissues, which can be influenced by drug properties, infusion techniques, and patient-related risk factors. Although peripheral administration of vesicants may increase the risk of extravasation injuries, the time and resources required for central venous catheter placement may delay administration of time-sensitive therapies. Recent literature gathered from the growing use of peripheral vasopressors and hypertonic sodium suggests low risk of harm for initiating these emergent therapies peripherally, which may prevent delays and improve patient outcomes. Physiochemical causes of tissue injury include vasoconstriction, pH-mediated, osmolar-mediated, and cytotoxic mechanisms of extravasation injuries. Acidic agents, such as promethazine, amiodarone, and vancomycin, may cause edema, sloughing, and necrosis secondary to cellular desiccation. Alternatively, basic agents, such as phenytoin and acyclovir, may be more caustic due to deeper tissue penetration of the dissociated hydroxide ions. Osmotically active agents cause cellular damage as a result of osmotic shifts across cellular membranes in addition to agent-specific toxicities, such as calcium-induced vasoconstriction and calcifications or arginine-induced leakage of potassium causing apoptosis. A new category has been proposed to identify absorption-refractory mechanisms of injury in which agents such as propofol and lipids may persist in the extravasated space and cause necrosis or compartment syndrome. Pharmacological antidotes may be useful in select extravasations but requires prompt recognition and frequently complex administration strategies. Historically, intradermal phentolamine has been the preferred agent for vasopressor extravasations, but frequent supply shortages have led to the emergence of terbutaline, a β2 -agonist, as an acceptable alternative treatment option. For hyperosmolar and pH-related mechanisms of injuries, hyaluronidase is most commonly used to facilitate absorption and dispersion of injected agents. However, extravasation management is largely supportive and requires a protocolized multidisciplinary approach for early detection, treatment, and timely surgical referral when required to minimize adverse events.
Prediction of Extended Period of Vasopressor Infusion Requiring Central Venous Catheterisation: A Burning Issue in Critical Care

Zhongheng Zhang,Leo Anthony Celi,Kwok M. Ho

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0310057x211030927

2021-01-01

Abstract:Vasopressor infusion is one of the most important interventions in the critical care setting, especially for patients with circulatory failure...

Bacterial sensitivity to erythromycin: two years experience (1953-1954).

Safety of peripheral administration of vasopressor medications: A systematic review

Safety of Peripherally Infused Sympathomimetic Vasopressors in the Intensive Care Unit and Emergency Department

Complications from Administration of Vasopressors Through Peripheral Venous Catheters: An Observational Study

Comparison of extravasation events related to the peripheral administration of vasopressors prior to and following implementation of an institutional protocol

The development of a nurse-driven protocol for the safe administration of vasopressors through peripheral intravenous catheters

Safety of peripheral intravenous administration of vasoactive medication

Safety and efficacy of peripheral versus centrally administered vasopressor infusion: A single-centre retrospective observational study

Max-min hybrid precoding in millimeter wave cooperative MISO systems

[Safety of administration of norepinephrine through peripheral vein line in patients with septic shock]

Effect of acetazolamide on pulmonary and muscle gas exchange during normoxic and hypoxic exercise

Peripheral Administration of Norepinephrine: A Prospective Observational Study

Adverse events associated with administration of vasopressor medications through a peripheral intravenous catheter: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Complication of vasopressor infusion through peripheral venous catheter: A systematic review and meta-analysis

[A comparative study of hepatic cholestasis after infusion of long chain triglycerides and a mixture of medium and long chain triglycerides].

Safety of Phenylephrine Infusion Through Peripheral Intravenous Catheter in the Neurological Intensive Care Unit

Peripheral Use of Vasopressors in Shock: Clinical Considerations and Recommendations for Use in Obstetrics

Implementation of a Protocol for Peripheral Intravenous Norepinephrine: Does It Save Central Line Insertion, Is It Safe?

The Association of Vasopressor Administration through a Midline Catheter with Catheter-related Complications

Management of noncytotoxic extravasation injuries: A focused update on medications, treatment strategies, and peripheral administration of vasopressors and hypertonic saline

Prediction of Extended Period of Vasopressor Infusion Requiring Central Venous Catheterisation: A Burning Issue in Critical Care