Aging of the vascular system is associated with deep changes of the structural proprieties of the arterial wall. Arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and chronic kidney disease are the major determinants for the loss of elasticity and reduced compliance of vascular wall. Arterial stiffness is a key parameter for assessing the elasticity of the arterial wall and can be easily evaluated with non-invasive methods, such as pulse wave velocity. Early assessment of vessel stiffness is critical because its alteration can precede clinical manifestation of cardiovascular disease. Although there is no specific pharmacological target for arterial stiffness, the treatment of its risk factors helps to improve the elasticity of the arterial wall.

Central venous access devices are essential for the management of critically ill patients, but they are potentially associated with many complications, which may occur during or after insertion. Many evidence-based documents—consensus and guidelines—suggest practical recommendations for reducing catheter-related complications, but they have some limitations. Some documents are not focused on critically ill patients; other documents address only some special strategies, such as the use of ultrasound; other documents are biased by obsolete concepts, inappropriate terminology, and lack of considerations for new technologies and new methods. Thus, the Italian Group of Venous Access Devices (GAVeCeLT) has decided to offer an updated compendium of the main strategies—old and new—that should be adopted for minimizing catheter-related complications in the adult critically ill patient. The project has been planned as a consensus, rather than a guideline, since many issues in this field are relatively recent, and few high-quality randomized clinical studies are currently available, particularly in the area of indications and choice of the device. Panelists were chosen between the Italian vascular access experts who had published papers on peer-reviewed journals about this topic in the last few years. The consensus process was carried out according to the RAND/University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Methodology, a modification of the Delphi method, that is, a structured process for collecting knowledge from groups of experts through a series of questionnaires. The final document has been structured as statements which answer to four major sets of questions regarding central venous access in the critically ill: (1) before insertion (seven questions), (2) during insertion (eight questions), (3) after insertion (three questions), and (4) at removal (three questions).

The tunneling technique is currently widely used for placement of CVC. Recently, some clinicians have used this technique for peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC), or Midline catheters (MCs). To describe a safe antegrade tunneling technique for PICCs and MCs insertion with a blunt tunneler. This retrospective monocentric survey collected ASST Lodi hospital data from January 1st to December 31st, 2019. The indication for PICCs and MCs tunneled implant was to respect the correct vein/catheter ratio or special clinical situation (children, burns, wounds, and wider catheter 5/6 fr). Contraindications included the operator’s low skills and severe risk of bleeding (INR > 3; Platelet count <50’000). About 390 PICCs (327 4 fr and 63 5 fr) and 183 MCs were placed. One hundred and sixty-five PICCs (42%) and 110 MCs (60%) were tunneled. Five fr PICCs were more present among tunneled catheters (54/165 [32.7%] vs 9/225 [4%] p < 0.0001). In the majority tunneling was necessary to respect the correct catheter/vein ratio. The exit site was shifted only for four special clinical situations: skin infections (one PICC and two MCs); burns (one MC). No early complication (intraprocedural, major bleeding), catheter related thrombosis, or device fractures occurred. Two catheter-related bloodstream infections (one PICC, one MC), nine dislocations (four PICCs, five MCs), one MC occlusion were recorded. The antegrade tunneling technique with blunt tunneler of PICCs and MCs is simple, rapid and is regarded as a safe maneuver. More in-depth and future prospective studies are needed to evaluate the impact of tunneling on early and late complications.

Most antimicrobial drugs need an intravenous (IV) administration to achieve maximum efficacy against target pathogens. IV administration is related to complications, such as tissue infiltration and thrombo-phlebitis. This systematic review aims to provide practical recommendations about diluent, pH, osmolarity, dosage, infusion rate, vesicant properties, and phlebitis rate of the most commonly used antimicrobial drugs evaluated in randomized controlled studies (RCT) till 31 March 2023. The authors searched for available IV antimicrobial drugs in RCT in PUBMED EMBASE^®, EBSCO^® CINAHL^®, and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical trials. Drugs’ chemical features were searched online, in drug data sheets, and in scientific papers, establishing that the drugs with a pH of 9, osmolarity >600 mOsm/L, high incidence of phlebitis reported in the literature, and vesicant drugs need the adoption of utmost caution during administration. We evaluated 931 papers; 232 studies were included. A total of 82 antimicrobials were identified. Regarding antibiotics, 37 reach the “caution” criterion, as well as seven antivirals, 10 antifungals, and three antiprotozoals. In this subgroup of antimicrobials, the correct vascular access device (VAD) selection is essential to avoid complications due to the administration through a peripheral vein. Knowing the physicochemical characteristics of antimicrobials is crucial to improve the patient’s safety significantly, thus avoiding administration errors and local side effects.