Venous access devices are of pivotal importance for an increasing number of critically ill patients in a variety of disease states and in a variety of clinical settings (emergency, intensive care, surgery) and for different purposes (fluids or drugs infusions, parenteral nutrition, antibiotic therapy, hemodynamic monitoring, procedures of dialysis/apheresis). However, healthcare professionals are commonly worried about the possible consequences that may result using a central venous access device (CVAD) (mainly, bloodstream infections and thrombosis), both peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and centrally inserted central catheters (CICCs). This review aims to discuss indications, insertion techniques, and care of PICCs in critically ill patients. PICCs have many advantages over standard CICCs. First of all, their insertion is easy and safe -due to their placement into peripheral veins of the arm- and the advantage of a central location of catheter tip suitable for all osmolarity and pH solutions. Using the ultrasound-guidance for the PICC insertion, the risk of hemothorax and pneumothorax can be avoided, as well as the possibility of primary malposition is very low. PICC placement is also appropriate to avoid post-procedural hemorrhage in patients with an abnormal coagulative state who need a CVAD. Some limits previously ascribed to PICCs (i.e., low flow rates, difficult central venous pressure monitoring, lack of safety for radio-diagnostic procedures, single-lumen) have delayed their start up in the intensive care units as common practice. Though, the recent development of power-injectable PICCs overcomes these technical limitations and PICCs have started to spread in critical care settings. Two important take-home messages may be drawn from this review. First, the incidence of complications varies depending on venous accesses and healthcare professionals should be aware of the different clinical performance as well as of the different risks associated with each type of CVAD (CICCs or PICCs). Second, an inappropriate CVAD choice and, particularly, an inadequate insertion technique are relevant-and often not recognized-potential risk factors for complications in critically ill patients. We strongly believe that all healthcare professionals involved in the choice, insertion or management of CVADs in critically ill patients should know all potential risk factors of complications. This knowledge may minimize complications and guarantee longevity to the CVAD optimizing the risk/benefit ratio of CVAD insertion and use. Proper management of CVADs in critical care saves lines and lives. Much evidence from the medical literature and from the clinical practice supports our belief that, compared to CICCs, the so-called power-injectable peripherally inserted central catheters are a good alternative choice in critical care.

The aim of this multicenter study was to assess the feasibility, safety, and accuracy of the intracavitary ECG method for real-time positioning of the tip of different types of central venous catheters.

A total of 1444 catheter insertions in adult patients were studied in eight Italian centers (539 ports, 245 PICCs, 325 tunneled CVCs, 335 non-tunneled CVCs). Patients with no visible P wave at the standard baseline ECG were excluded. Depending on the type of catheter and its purpose, the target was to position the tip either (a) at the cavo-atrial junction, or (b) in the lower third of the superior vena cava, or (c) in the upper part of the atrium. The final position was verified by a post-procedural chest x-ray.

The method was feasible in 99.3% of all cases. There were no complications potentially related to the method itself. At the final x-ray control, 83% of all tips were positioned exactly at the target; 12.4% were positioned within 1-2 cm from the target, but still in a correct central position; only 3.8% were malpositioned. The mismatch between intra-procedural ECG method and post-procedural x-ray was significantly lower when the x-ray was taken in supine position.

Our multicenter study confirms that the intracavitary ECG method for real time verification of tip position is accurate, safe, feasible in all adult patients and applicable to any type of short-term or long-term central venous access device.

Tip position of a central venous access is of paramount importance and should be verified before starting infusion. Intra-procedural methods for verifying the location of the tip are to be preferred, since they avoid the risks, delays and costs of repositioning the tip. Among the intra-procedural methods, the electrocardiography (EKG) method has many advantages since it is as accurate as fluoroscopy, but simpler, more readily available, less expensive, safer and more cost-effective. The only contraindication to utilizing the EKG method is the difficulty in identifying the standard P-wave on a surface EKG (this happens - usually because of severe arrhythmias, such as atrial fibrillation - in only approximately 7% of cases: although such patients are easily identified before the procedure, and are referred to other methods for tip positioning). When dealing with the insertion of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC), the EKG method (using the column of saline technique) virtually has no risk of false positives. The EKG method removes the need for the post-procedural chest x-ray, as long as there is no expected risk of pleuropulmonary damage to be ruled out (example: ultrasound guided central venipuncture for central venous catheter insertion or any kind of PICC insertion). In conclusion, evidence is mounting that the EKG method may be a valid and cost-effective alternative to the standard radiological control of the location of the tip of any central venous access device (VAD), and that will rapidly become the preferential method for confirming the tip position during PICC insertion.