Catheter Related Complication

This is a comparative, randomized, controlled pilot study. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy, comfort, and patient experience in people with long-term bladder catheterization with T-Control® versus patients with a conventional Foley-type catheter.

Obtaining intravenous access is difficult in the pediatric population. Ultrasound-guidance allows real-time visualization of target veins which are invisible and impalpable. We hypothesize that the use of ultrasound by a trained nurse team would improve the success rate of peripheral intravenous catheter insertion in pediatric patients with difficult intravenous access, compared to palpation of the vein alone. For this study, when peripheral intravenous catheterization will be indicated in one of the participating pediatric services for an eligible patient, state-certified nurse investigators, trained in ultrasound guidance, will be contacted. After verification of eligibility criteria and all informed consents obtained, one of the investigators will randomize the patient in one of the 2 treatment groups under study: peripheral intravenous catheterization by visualization and palpation of the vein alone (standard of care) or by ultrasound guidance performed by a trained nurse. Several outcomes will be measured and compared between the 2 groups (e.g. successful insertion of intravenous catheter, pain, adverse events).

Patients at risk of significant intraoperative blood loss and/or potential hemodynamic instability often necessitate the placement of two or more central venous catheters, including large bore catheters. In tertiary hospitals, anesthesiologists frequently encounter patients undergoing major surgeries such as liver transplantation, lung transplantation, cardiac surgery, and vascular surgery, who require multiple central venous punctures as part of routine anesthetic management. However, most review and consensus articles do not directly address the utilization of multiple catheters in the same venous site, nor establish formal recommendations regarding this practice. The latest consensus on central venous access from the American Association of Anesthesiologists (ASA), published in 2012, briefly touches upon some aspects related to this practice but does not outline any contraindications. Thus, the investigators have identified a gap in evidence and robust prospective studies addressing the use of more than one catheter in the same site for central venous access. This lacuna underscores the importance of conducting a controlled clinical study in our institutions to establish the efficacy and safety of this approach in the perioperative context. The present study aims to evaluate the incidence of mechanical complications (such as dysrhythmias, arterial puncture, hematoma, pneumothorax/hemothorax, insertion failure, or inadequate positioning) within the first 24 hours after double puncture of the internal jugular vein compared to puncture of two distinct central vessels, in patients undergoing multiple central venous accesses during major surgeries. This study will be designed as a prospective, randomized, non-inferiority, open, parallel clinical trial with two groups for patient allocation. Patients identified for multiple central venous accesses as part of preoperative anesthetic planning will be randomly allocated to either receive two central venous accesses in two separate sites (Group I or control group) or two concurrent central venous accesses in a single internal jugular vein (Group II or intervention group). Only adult patients classified as ASA I to IV (over 18 years old), scheduled for major surgery, will be eligible for inclusion.