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.

Tip location of central venous access devices is considered highly relevant for the purpose of reducing catheter-related complications and prolong the duration of the access. Though, the choice of the method of tip location currently relies upon the operator’s experience, preference, and training, on the local availability of specific resources and technologies, and on local policies. On the contrary, considering the relevance of tip location, such clinical choice should preferably be based on the best available evidence. Though current guidelines recommend intra-procedural rather than post-procedural methods of tip location, many clinicians still adopt the strategy of assessing the position of the tip by radiological methods after the completion of the procedure. Also, though current guidelines and evidence-based documents recommend the intra-cavitary electrocardiography and/or trans-thoracic echocardiography as preferred methods of intraprocedural tip location, many clinicians still adopt fluoroscopy. While the pros and cons of each different method of tip location are well known, there is no evidence-based document that offer robust recommendations about the choice of tip location of different central venous access devices in different population of patients (neonates, children, adults). Therefore, the Italian Group of Long-Term Venous Access Devices (GAVeCeLT) and the Italian Vascular Access Society (IVAS) have developed a national consensus on the choice of the most appropriate method of tip location. After a systematic review of the available evidence, the panel of the consensus (which included 22 Italian experts with documented competence in this area) has provided structured recommendations answering six key questions regarding the choice between intra-procedural and post-procedural tip location, as well as the appropriate indication of the four different methods of intra-procedural tip location currently available (trans-esophageal echocardiography, trans-thoracic echocardiography, intracavitary electrocardiography, and fluoroscopy). Only statements reaching a 100% agreement were included in the final recommendations.

Venous Access Devices (VADs) are the most used devices in COVID-19 patients. Identify VADs implanted, catheter related thrombosis (CRT), catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), and accidental remove of VADs in both COVID-19 positive and COVID-19 free patients. Successive analysis was conducted comparing COVID-19 positive patients with COVID-19 free with inverse probability propensity score weights using simple regression to account for these two confounders (peripheral tip as central/peripheral and hospitalization as no/yes). This multicenter, retrospective cohort study collected data from seven hospitals in Lombardy during the pandemic period from February 21st to May 31st 2020. A total of 2206 VADs were evaluated, 1107 (50.2%) of which were inserted in COVID-19 patients. In COVID-19 cohort the first choice was Long Peripheral Cannula in 388 patients (35.1%) followed by Midline Catheter in 385 (34.8%). The number of “central tip” VADs inserted in COVID-free inpatients and COVID-19 positive were similar (307 vs 334). We recorded 42 (1.9%) CRT; 32 (79.2%) were observed in COVID-19 patients. A total of 19 CRBSI were diagnosed; 15 (78.95%) were observed in COVID-19. Accidental removals were the more represented complication with 123 cases, 85 (69.1%) of them were in COVID-19. COVID-19 significantly predicted occurrence of CRT (OR = 2.00(1.85–5.03); p < 0.001), CRSB (OR = 3.82(1.82–8.97); p < 0.001), and Accidental Removal (OR = 2.39(1.80–3.20); p < 0.001) in our propensity score weighted models. CRT, CRBSI, and accidental removal are significantly more frequent in COVID-19 patients. Accidental removals are the principal complication, for this reason, the use of subcutaneously anchored securement is recommended for a shorter period than usual.

Ultrasound has an important role in many aspects of central venous catheterization. In the last decade, bedside ultrasound has been regarded as a promising tool also for ensuring an accurate and intraprocedural assessment of the location of the catheter tip, as an alternative or complimentary option to intracavitary electrocardiography. In this regard, 5 years ago the Italian Group of Venous Access Devices (GAVeCeLT) developed detailed protocols for the standardization of this methodology in different populations of patients: neonates (Neo-ECHOTIP), children (ECHOTIP-Ped), and adults (ECHOTIP). In the lapse of time since the publication of these protocols, recent clinical studies have brought novel information and new evidence, so that some recommendations included in the original ECHOTIP protocol for adults today may seem incomplete or inappropriate. For this reason, GAVeCeLT has developed an updated version of the protocol, nick-named ECHOTIP-2, which includes new recommendations in regards of some technical aspects of the procedure of bubble test and of the application of the method to femorally inserted central catheters.