This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are used for visitor analysis, others are essential to making our site function properly and improve the user experience. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Click Accept to consent and dismiss this message or Deny to leave this website. Read our Privacy Statement for more.
Print Page | Sign In | Join Now
ASDIN Physician Blog
Blog Home All Blogs
Search all posts for:   

 

View all (199) posts »

Central line access in critically ill ESRD patient.

Posted By Peter Van, Sunday, December 18, 2016
Updated: Sunday, December 18, 2016

Hello all,

 

This is a case that I think comes up often in ESRD patients due to peripheral vascular disease that can be seen in the dialysis patient population:

 

65 y/o AAF with ESRD, IDDM, and chronic hypotension presents to ER at outside hospital with septic shock and is transferred to admitting facility for ICU admission. Prior to her presentation to the ER, she had missed HD treatment x2 since she was not feeling well and thought she had a viral infection. She became confused and was taken to ER by family.  She had BP 69/50, HR 110, T 100.3F, RR 26, sO290% on 100% non-rebreather FM. She is noted to have discharge from the exit site of a tunneled dialysis catheter in the right femoral area. Tunneled catheter was removed in ER, not sure by who since notes from outside facility are unclear. She is given Vancomycin, Zosyn, and started on Levophed for BP support. She currently has a working AVG in the left thigh. History on the working left thigh AVG is that it was placed in May 2016, complicated infection with abscess requiring I&D about 1 week later. She was seen by vascular surgery on 10/5/2016 and AVG was healed and cleared for use. She has had multiple previous AVG with multiple procedures for maintenance and has suspected bilateral central venous stenosis due to presence of lower extremity dialysis access. Patient admitted to ICU, central line placement attempts by MICU team failed and LUE IO line is placed for use of pressors. Nephrology consulted for dialysis support due to severe lactic acidosis and ESRD so patient receives treatment via left thigh AVG with SLED on the night of admission.

 

Patient is without adequate IV access and only has LUE IO (on night of admission TLC was attempted at bedside by MICU resident but they were unable to thread guidewire and after several attempts procedure aborted. Surgery consulted to obtain subclavian central line but failed as well). The following day, a TLC was then placed by Interventional Nephrologist in Right groin in the afternoon. TLC appeared to be placed ok, however upon testing only the brown port was functioning. MICU team was weary of the line so it was removed and Interventional Radiology was consulted and patient taken to IR suite for line placement that night. Per IR procedure note, they were identified the right common femoral vein. A well-organized echogenic thrombus was seen in it. A Tortuous right inferior epigastric venous collateral was also visualized. Multiple attempts to pass a micropuncture wire after cannulation of the RCF vein with 20g needle was unsuccessful due to the thrombus. Right inferior epigastric collateral was also accessed under US guidance and contrast injected which confirmed occlusion of the right pelvic veins and due to the marked tortuosity of the inferior epigastric collateral, a line could not be placed and patient was returned to MICU with LUE IO in place. Repeat attempt by Interventional Nephrology was done the following morning. A 0.035 Glidewire was passed through the old tunnel of right femoral vein tunneled catheter that was recently removed. It was confirmed on fluoroscopy to advance to IVC. A Hickman catheter was then passed into the IVC and it was tested and flushed easily after tip was confirmed with fluoroscopy. Patient was then returned to ICU with a working Hickman line for pressors, however due to patient having a poor prognosis her family decided to withdraw care and she subsequently expired.

 

Questions:

1.       Does the presence of a tunneled catheter and possible fibrin sheath make her infection more resistant to treatment with antibiotics.

2.       It was suggested by other services that a central line be placed through the AVG for use since multiple attempts at central line placement failed. Are you for or against this idea and what are the major concerns that factor in the decision of placing a line though the dialysis access?

3.       Glidewire was able to pass successfully into the IVC via the old venotomy and tunnel. Do you feel passing the guidewire though an infected tunnel to obtain the central line should be avoided considering her infection issues?

 

I have attached pictures of IR angiogram that was done via inferior epigastric vein collateral. Picture of Hickman catheter in IVC, and a picture of the IVC angiogram done via Hickman catheter (unfortunately the last 2 images for some reason did not have great contrast when copied).

 

Have a great one!

 

Peter Van, MD

 

 

 Attached Thumbnails:

This post has not been tagged.

Permalink | Comments (3)
 

Comments on this post...

...
Suresh K. Margassery says...
Posted Sunday, December 18, 2016
Patients with such nephrology problem especially with associated underlying vascular paucity always pose a clinical conundrum questioning the ultimate principles of evidence based medical management vs. point of care patient tailored management defying the evidence based recommendations.

In order to optimally treat sepsis/infection, it is the usual recommendation to clear the patients of all intravascular prosthetic materials including grafts, leads, valves, clots, etc.. Despite these recommendations, patients tends to keep the important life-sustaining prosthetic materials as well as the prosthetics that are difficult to remove with only the easily removable vascular catheters/lines removed while treating the patients with anti-infective agents for an extended time frame. Especially in longstanding dialysis patients with vascular nightmares, the vascular catheters are exchanged most of the time than being removed.

Regarding the posted questions:
1. Definitely, the presence of tunneled catheter, fibrin sheaths and thrombus will make it difficult to clear blood stream infections and quite often, the patients tends to have persistent bacteremia or fungemia. In this patient, there is also a concern of infection seeding the femoral AV graft (especially, with her history of previous longstanding abscess related to the AV graft).

2. In principle, the dialysis access should not be used for any other purpose other than for dialysis with the exception being the life-threatening/life-sustaining situations requiring urgent vascular access for therapeutic needs. If no other veins could be accessed for providing life-sustaining therapeutic measures as in this case, one could argue with exception to obtain a central line via the AV graft (even though it is not the evidence-base approach). The main problem with such an approach will be the risk of developing thrombotic occlusion of the AV graft and off course the source for infecting the AV graft as well).

3. As a rule, it is always recommended to avoid inserting lines through the tunnel of infected catheters. Again, the exception to the rule comes to play in this case as the patient had no other accessible venous circuits for obtaining a central line in order to provided life-sustaining therapeutics measures. Hence, one could argue against the best medical practice and attempt a central line insertion via the old catheter tunnel.

On the whole, the prognosis of this patient seemed to be poor and I believe that the family proceeded with the appropriate decision of comfort measures.




Permalink to this Comment }

...
Marc Webb says...
Posted Monday, December 19, 2016
Years ago, I was sent a patient from a prestigious institution in my town. 41 years old, she had a failed transplant, seven failed accesses in three extremities, and a permacath placed through her clotted thigh graft. "The other doctors will be mad that I did this," he told the patient, and I was.
She had recanalization and stenting of the right subclavian vein with right arm graft placement in 2007, then recanalization and stenting of the left subclavian vein with left arm graft placement in 2009. She has been maintained with occasional venoplasties and thrombectomies ever since. The infected thigh graft was removed in 2009.
My position is that at great need, the graft can be cannulated with a steel butterfly needle for blood draws and infusions using the same technique used in the dialysis unit. The needle should not be left in for more than 4 hours except in life threatening instances.
Permalink to this Comment }

...
Mukesh K. Sharma says...
Posted Monday, January 9, 2017
Peter....great case ! Apologies for the delayed comments I'm making. I agree with what Dr. Margassery and Dr. Webb both had posted. My 2 cents:

Q1. Does the presence of a tunneled catheter and possible fibrin sheath make her infection more resistant to treatment with antibiotics. ----I think there is no doubt in minds of most (should I say all) of us that presence of a foreign body in any form/shape, specially those in direct contact with blood stream, pose a risk for seeding of the infection and thus can hinder/delaying the process of clearing of the infection.

Q2. It was suggested by other services that a central line be placed through the AVG for use since multiple attempts at central line placement failed. Are you for or against this idea and what are the major concerns that factor in the decision of placing a line though the dialysis access? ----- I agree that dialysis access should not be used for anything else other than dialysis, but if the patient is "dying" for a need for an iv, what use would be a working graft/catheter in a "dead" patient? Yes, I would access the graft/catheter for pushing life saving medicines/pressors etc. I agree with Dr. Webb for opting for a butterfly needle (you can use multiple needles in an access) in an emergency. How long can you leave them in ???? I don't think there is any literature to back this. Most would say 4 hours since this is what we leave the needles in for a typical dialysis session. But I would debate to leave them in as long as the patient does not have another viable access, specially if the situation is so dire to put an intra-osseous (IO) line (like in your patient described above). IO which are recommend to be removed within 24 hours

3. Glidewire was able to pass successfully into the IVC via the old venotomy and tunnel. Do you feel passing the guidewire though an infected tunnel to obtain the central line should be avoided considering her infection issues? ---- Yes, this should be avoided but while exchanging a tunneled dialysis catheter for an infected tunnel, don't we do this all the time, while we have to create a new tunnel ? So, my answer is, yes you have to avoid this if you can, but in life saving situation, I would err on the side of doing it, if it gives me an opportunity to place a line in the patient that has no other option. Once you are able to place your wire in a central vessel, you can always try to create a new tunnel for the new line.

All the best and hope to see you in New Orleans in Feb !
Permalink to this Comment }