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).

Introduction: Midline catheters are widely used in clinical practice. Proper placement of midline catheter tip is usually assessed only by aspirating blood and flushing with normal saline without resistance. Purpose: To describe the ultrasound-guided tip location for midline catheters and its feasibility and to compare incidence of catheter-related venous thrombosis associated with or without ultrasound tip localization. Methods: The ultrasound-guided tip location is described step by step. Feasibility of the technique and incidence of catheter-related venous thrombosis were measured (study group) and compared with two historical groups: study group, 20-cm midline catheters inserted with ultrasound-guided tip location; group 1, 25-cm midline catheters inserted without ultrasound-guided tip location and group 2, 20-cm midline catheters inserted without ultrasound-guided tip location. Results: In the study group, ultrasound-guided tip location was easily feasible in 98.9% of patients. Incidence of catheter-related venous thrombosis was 2.42% in control group 1, 9% in control group 2 and 2.62% in the study group. Discussion: In the study group and control group 1, the tip was placed in the axillary vein, about 3 cm distal to the clavicle and in the subclavian vein. In control group 2, the tip was probably located at the transition between the axillary and the subclavian vein. It is possible that such position may have been associated with an increased incidence of catheter-related venous thrombosis. Conclusion: The ideal position of the tip of a midline catheter might be inside the axillary vein, about 3 cm distal to the axillary-subclavian transition or inside the subclavian vein. Ultrasound-guided tip location is safe, inexpensive, easy and potentially useful during midline catheters insertion.

Purpose: To describe a quick tunnelling technique for peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) insertion called the “extended subcutaneous route” technique. Methods: The “extended subcutaneous route” technique is described step by step. Results: In 18 consecutive PICCs, inserted with extended route technique in ASST Monza, no complications during insertion were registered. In 969 catheter days observed, we identified only one accidental dislodgement. No other mid-term complications were observed. Conclusions: Extended subcutaneous route technique allows the creation of a subcutaneous tunnel <5 cm, without skin incision and additional manipulation. Extended subcutaneous route technique may be feasible and useful, particularly for patients with high risk of bleeding or infection.

In the past 5 years, non-dialysis femoral venous access has changed in terms of indications, techniques of insertion, and expected incidence of complications. To the traditional non-emergency indication for femoral catheters—obstruction of the superior vena cava—many other indications have been added, both in intensive and non-intensive care. The insertion technique has evolved, thanks to ultrasound guided venipuncture, tunneling, and ultrasound based intraprocedural tip location. Insertion of femorally inserted central catheters may be today regarded as a procedure with an extremely low intraprocedural and post-procedural risk. The risk of infection is reduced by the possibility of the exit site at mid-thigh, by the use of cyanoacrylate glue for sealing the exit site, and by appropriate intraprocedural strategies of infection prevention. The risk of catheter-related thrombosis is low, due to several concomitant strategies: a proper match between vein diameter and catheter caliber; an accurate intraprocedural assessment of tip location by ultrasound and/or intracavitary ECG; the consistent use of ultrasound guided venipuncture and micro-introducer kits; an adequate stabilization of the catheter at the exit site. The risk of mechanical complications and the risk of lumen occlusion are minimized when using polyurethane, power injectable catheters. All these novelties have brought a revolution in the field of femoral venous access, so that this route may be considered as safe and effective as other approaches to central venous catheterization.

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.