Mostrar registro simples

dc.contributor.authorSilva, Eneida Rejane Rabelo dapt_BR
dc.contributor.authorLourenço, Solange Antoniapt_BR
dc.contributor.authorMaestri, Rubia Natashapt_BR
dc.contributor.authorLuz, Claudia Candido dapt_BR
dc.contributor.authorPupin, Vanderlei Carlospt_BR
dc.contributor.authorCechinel, Raquel Bauerpt_BR
dc.contributor.authorFerro, Eduarda Bordinipt_BR
dc.contributor.authorSaffi, Marco Aurélio Lumertzpt_BR
dc.contributor.authorSilva, Telma Christina do Campopt_BR
dc.contributor.authorAndrade, Larissa Martins dept_BR
dc.contributor.authorGomes, Larissa Fernanda Salespt_BR
dc.contributor.authorGama, Lorena Alves dapt_BR
dc.contributor.authorAraújo, Mariana Marques dept_BR
dc.contributor.authorEspírito Santo, Fábio Rodrigues Ferreira dopt_BR
dc.contributor.authorPedraza, Leticia Lópezpt_BR
dc.contributor.authorHirakata, Vânia Naomipt_BR
dc.contributor.authorSoares, Vilma Santanapt_BR
dc.contributor.authorMontenegro, Widlani Sousapt_BR
dc.contributor.authorFreitas, Gustavo Rocha Costa dept_BR
dc.contributor.authorJesus, Thaís Souza dept_BR
dc.contributor.authorChopra, Vineetpt_BR
dc.date.accessioned2024-12-25T06:52:37Zpt_BR
dc.date.issued2022pt_BR
dc.identifier.issn2044-5423pt_BR
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10183/282882pt_BR
dc.description.abstractBackground Little is known about peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) use, appropriateness and device outcomes in Brazil. Methods We conducted an observational, prospective, cohort study spanning 16 Brazilian hospitals from October 2018 to August 2020. Patients ≥18 years receiving a PICC were included. PICC placement variables were abstracted from medical records. PICC-related major (deep vein thrombosis (DVT), central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) and catheter occlusion) and minor complications were collected. Appropriateness was evaluated using the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC). Devices were considered inappropriate if they were in place for <5 days, were multi-lumen, and/or were placed in patients with a creatinine >2.0 mg/dL. PICCs considered appropriate met none of these criteria. Mixed-effects logistic regression models adjusting for patient-level and hospital-level characteristics assessed the association between appropriateness and major complications. Results Data from 12 725 PICCs were included. Mean patient age was 66.4±19 years and 51.0% were female. The most common indications for PICCs were intravenous antibiotics (81.1%) and difficult access (62.7%). Most PICCs (72.2%) were placed under ultrasound guidance. The prevalence of complications was low: CLABSI (0.9%); catheter-related DVT (1.0%) and reversible occlusion (2.5%). Of the 12 725 devices included, a total of 7935 (62.3%) PICCs were inappropriate according to MAGIC. With respect to individual metrics for appropriateness, 17.0% were placed for <5 days, 60.8% were multi-lumen and 11.3% were in patients with creatinine >2.0 mg/dL. After adjusting for patient and hospital-level characteristics, multi-lumen PICCs considered inappropriate were associated with greater odds of major complications (OR 2.54, 95% CI 1.61 to 4.02). Conclusions Use of PICCs in Brazilian hospitals appears to be safe and comparable with North America. However, opportunities to improve appropriateness remain. Future studies examining barriers and facilitators to improving device use in Brazil would be welcomed.en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfpt_BR
dc.language.isoengpt_BR
dc.relation.ispartofBMJ Quality & Safety. London : BMJ Pub. Group, 2011-. Vol. 31 (2022), p. 652-61pt_BR
dc.rightsOpen Accessen
dc.subjectCateterismo periféricopt_BR
dc.titlePatterns, appropriateness and outcomes of peripherally inserted central catheter use in Brazil : a multicentre study of 12725 catheterspt_BR
dc.typeArtigo de periódicopt_BR
dc.identifier.nrb001216680pt_BR
dc.type.originEstrangeiropt_BR


Thumbnail
   

Este item está licenciado na Creative Commons License

Mostrar registro simples