The Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC): Results From a Multispecialty Panel Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 15 September 2015
- journal article
- practice guideline
- Published by American College of Physicians in Annals of Internal Medicine
- Vol. 163 (6_Suppleme), S1-S40
- https://doi.org/10.7326/m15-0744
Abstract
Use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) has grown substantially in recent years. Increasing use has led to the realization that PICCs are associated with important complications, including thrombosis and infection. Moreover, some PICCs may not be placed for clinically valid reasons. Defining appropriate indications for insertion, maintenance, and care of PICCs is thus important for patient safety. An international panel was convened that applied the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to develop criteria for use of PICCs. After systematic reviews of the literature, scenarios related to PICC use, care, and maintenance were developed according to patient population (for example, general hospitalized, critically ill, cancer, kidney disease), indication for insertion (infusion of peripherally compatible infusates vs. vesicants), and duration of use (≤5 days, 6 to 14 days, 15 to 30 days, or ≥31 days). Within each scenario, appropriateness of PICC use was compared with that of other venous access devices. After review of 665 scenarios, 253 (38%) were rated as appropriate, 124 (19%) as neutral/uncertain, and 288 (43%) as inappropriate. For peripherally compatible infusions, PICC use was rated as inappropriate when the proposed duration of use was 5 or fewer days. Midline catheters and ultrasonography-guided peripheral intravenous catheters were preferred to PICCs for use between 6 and 14 days. In critically ill patients, nontunneled central venous catheters were preferred over PICCs when 14 or fewer days of use were likely. In patients with cancer, PICCs were rated as appropriate for irritant or vesicant infusion, regardless of duration. The panel of experts used a validated method to develop appropriate indications for PICC use across patient populations. These criteria can be used to improve care, inform quality improvement efforts, and advance the safety of medical patients.Keywords
This publication has 223 references indexed in Scilit:
- Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: Use at a Tertiary Care Pediatric CenterJournal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, 2013
- Analysis of the Sherlock II tip location system for inserting peripherally inserted central venous cathetersClinical Imaging, 2013
- Prospective follow-up of complications related to peripherally inserted central cathetersMedecine Et Maladies Infectieuses, 2013
- Peripherally inserted central catheter placement in cancer patients with profound thrombocytopaenia: a prospective analysisEuropean Radiology, 2013
- Comparison of catheter-related large vein thrombosis in centrally inserted versus peripherally inserted central venous lines in the neurological intensive care unitClinical Neurology and Neurosurgery, 2012
- Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) in the management of oncohematological patients submitted to autologous stem cell transplantationSupportive Care in Cancer, 2012
- Self-administration of outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy and risk of catheter-related adverse events: a retrospective cohort studyEuropean Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, 2012
- How Long Should Peripherally Inserted Central Catheterization Be Delayed in the Context of Recently Documented Bloodstream Infection?Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, 2012
- The impact of PICC Lines on Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) rates in patients who undergo bowel major bowel resectionJournal of the American College of Surgeons, 2011
- Low-dose aspirin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in breast cancer patients treated with infusional chemotherapy after insertion of central vein catheterSupportive Care in Cancer, 2007