Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:25:48.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters in children with congenital heart disease: miniMAGIC-CHD

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 March 2021

Tanya Perry Open the ORCID record for Tanya Perry [Opens in a new window] ,
Amanda J Ullman ,
Ranjit Aiyagari ,
Stephanie Pitts ,
Jeffrey P Jacobs  and
David S Cooper
Tanya Perry*
Affiliation:
The Heart Institute, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Department of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA
Amanda J Ullman
Affiliation:
Alliance for Vascular Access Teaching and Research, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Queensland Children’s Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Ranjit Aiyagari
Affiliation:
Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Stephanie Pitts
Affiliation:
St Joseph’s Children’s Hospital, Tampa, FL, USA B. Braun Medical, Bethlehem, PA, USA
Jeffrey P Jacobs
Affiliation:
Congenital Heart Center, Division of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
David S Cooper
Affiliation:
The Heart Institute, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Department of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Tanya Perry, DO, Department of Pediatrics, The Heart Institute, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, 3333 Burnet Avenue, MLC 2003, Cincinnati, OH 45229, USA. Tel: 513-803-9374; Fax: (513) 803-4493. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

The approach to vascular access in children with CHD is a complex decision-making process that may have long-term implications. To date, evidence-based recommendations have not been established to inform this process.

Methods:

The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to develop miniMAGIC, including sequential phases: definition of scope and key terms; information synthesis and literature review; expert multidisciplinary panel selection and engagement; case scenario development; and appropriateness ratings by expert panel via two rounds. Specific recommendations were made for children with CHD.

Results:

Recommendations were established for the appropriateness of the selection, characteristics, and insertion technique of intravenous catheters in children with CHD with both univentricular and biventricular physiology.

Conclusion:

miniMAGIC-CHD provides evidence-based criteria for intravenous catheter selection for children with CHD.

Keywords

Congenital heart diseasecardiac critical carevascular access
Type
Original Article
Information
Cardiology in the Young , Volume 31 , Issue 11 , November 2021 , pp. 1814 - 1818
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aiyagari, R, Cooper, DS, Jacobs, JP. Vascular access in children with congenital heart defects. Pediatrics 2020; 145 (Suppl 3): S294–s295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ullman, AJ, Bernstein, SJ, Brown, E, et al. The Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters in Pediatrics: miniMAGIC. Pediatrics 2020; 145 (Suppl 3): S269–s284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aiyagari, R, Song, JY, Donohue, JE, Yu, S, Gaies, MG. Central venous catheter-associated complications in infants with single ventricle: comparison of umbilical and femoral venous access routes. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2012; 13: 549–553.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DiPietro, LM, Gaies, M, Banerjee, M, et al. Central venous catheter utilization and complications in the pediatric cardiac ICU: a report from the Pediatric Cardiac Critical Care Consortium (PC4). Pediatr Crit Care Med 2020; 21: 729–737.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noonan, PJ, Hanson, SJ, Simpson, PM, Dasgupta, M, Petersen, TL. Comparison of complication rates of central venous catheters versus peripherally inserted central venous catheters in pediatric patients. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2018; 19: 1097–1105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fitch, K, Bernstein, SJ, Aguilar, MD, Burnand, B, LaCalle, JR, Lazaro, P, Loo, MVH, McDonnell, J, Vader, J, Kahan, JP. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method user’s manual. 2001, Rand Corp, Santa Monica CA.Google Scholar
Ullman, AJ, Chopra, V, Brown, E, et al. Developing appropriateness criteria for pediatric vascular access. Pediatrics 2020; 145 (Suppl 3): S233–s242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacobs, JP, O'Brien, SM, Pasquali, SK, et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Congenital Heart Surgery Database Mortality Risk Model: Part 2-Clinical Application. Ann Thorac Surg 2015; 100: 1063–1068; discussion 1068–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, TKS, Subramanian, S, Tansey, JB, et al. Optimum position of transthoracic intracardiac line following cardiac surgery. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2017; 25: 883–886.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, JW, Vu, DN, Chai, PJ, et al. Upper body central venous catheters in pediatric cardiac surgery. Paediatr Anaesth 2013; 23: 980–988.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perry, T, Bora, K, Bakar, A, Meyer, DB, Sweberg, T. Non-surgical risk factors for the development of chylothorax in children after cardiac surgery-does fluid matter? Pediatr Cardiol 2020; 41: 194–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stein, ML, Quinonez, LG, DiNardo, JA, Brown, ML. Complications of transthoracic intracardiac and central venous lines in neonates undergoing cardiac surgery. Pediatr Cardiol 2019; 40: 733–737.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Grady, NP, Alexander, M, Burns, LA, et al. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 52: e162–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marshall, AM, Danford, DA, Curzon, CL, Anderson, V, Delaney, JW. Traditional long-term central venous catheters versus transhepatic venous catheters in infants and young children. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2017; 18: 944–948.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boe, BA, Zampi, JD, Yu, S, Donohue, JE, Aiyagari, R Transhepatic central venous catheters in pediatric patients with congenital heart disease. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2015; 16: 726–732.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mortell, A, Said, H, Doodnath, R, Walsh, K, Corbally, M. Transhepatic central venous catheter for long-term access in paediatric patients. J Pediatr Surg 2008; 43: 344–347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Qureshi, AM, Rhodes, JF, Appachi, E, et al. Transhepatic Broviac catheter placement for long-term central venous access in critically ill children with complex congenital heart disease. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2007; 8: 248–253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Inston, N, Khawaja, A, Mistry, H, Jones, R, Valenti, D Options for end stage vascular access: translumbar catheter, arterial-arterial access or right atrial graft? J Vasc Access 2020; 21, 7–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bozaan, D, Skicki, D, Brancaccio, A, et al. Less Lumens-Less Risk: a pilot intervention to increase the use of single-lumen peripherally inserted central catheters. J Hosp Med 2019; 14: 42–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chopra, V, et al. The Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC): results from a multispecialty panel using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. Ann Intern Med 2015; 163 (6 Suppl): S1–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed