Newborn

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 1 , ISSUE 1 ( January-March, 2022 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Low-lying Umbilical Venous Catheters are not Always Associated with Increased Complications

Sunil Joghee, Majeeda Kamaluddeen, Amuchou Soraisham

Keywords : Complications, Newborn, Umbilical venous catheter

Citation Information : Joghee S, Kamaluddeen M, Soraisham A. Low-lying Umbilical Venous Catheters are not Always Associated with Increased Complications. 2022; 1 (1):1-6.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-11002-0004

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 31-03-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Abstract

Introduction: Umbilical venous catheters (UVCs) are frequently used for clinical care in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). Umbilical venous catheters cannot always be positioned perfectly in the inferior vena cava, and low catheters have to be used until a more stable peripherally inserted central catheter can be placed after ruling-out early onset sepsis. There are concerns that low UVCs may be associated with complications such as infection, extravasation, and thrombosis. Objectives: To determine whether UVC complications were associated with (1) low positioning of the catheter tip and (2) the postnatal age at insertion. Methods: We examined a retrospective cohort of infants with UVCs in a tertiary NICU. Neonates with major congenital anomalies, hydrops fetalis, prenatally diagnosed cardiac arrhythmias, pericardial effusion, or ascites were excluded. The position of UVCs is considered as optimum if its tip is seen on radiographs at the level between 8th and 10th thoracic vertebrae (T8–T10), to be low if below T10, and high if above T8. The primary outcome was UVC-related complications resulting in early removal of catheter. We compared the rates of UVC-related complications resulting in removal of UVCs with tips in normal (T8–T10) vs low-lying (below T10) positions at the time of insertion. We also examined the impact of postnatal age, before or after 12 hours, and the frequency of the UVC-related complication. Results: Of the 919 eligible infants, UVC tips were located optimally in 433 (47%) and were low in 415 (45%). The UVC was positioned at an abnormally high position in 71 (8%) infants. Of the 919 infants, UVC-related complication was seen in 54 (5.9%) infants. Low-lying UVCs were removed due to complications in 27 of 415 (6.5%) compared with 20 of 433 (4.6%) optimally position catheters [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.16; 95% confidence interval (CI): (0.62–2.17)]. High-placed UVCs were associated with a higher rate of cardiac complications (aOR = 6.09, 95% CI [2.03–18.28]) compared with optimally position UVCs. There was also no difference in UVC-related complications between early and late insertion of UVC (6.3% vs 4.7%, p = 0.34). Conclusions: The frequency of complications and consequent need for removal did not differ in UVCs with a tip position traditionally perceived to be optimal or low or by the time of insertion after birth.


HTML PDF Share
  1. Mutlu M, Aslan Y, Kul S, et al. Umbilical venous catheter complications in newborns: a 6-year single-center experience. J Matern Neonatal Med 2016;29(17):2817–2822. DOI: 10.3109/14767058.2015.1105952.
  2. El Ters N, Claassen C, Lancaster T, et al. Central versus low-lying umbilical venous catheters: a multicenter study of practices and complications. Am J Perinatol 2019;36(11):1198–204. DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1676482.
  3. Shahroor M, Maarouf AM, Yang J, et al. Complications associated with low position versus good position umbilical venous catheters in neonates of ≤32 weeks’ gestation. Am J Perinatol 2020;1(212). DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1715117.
  4. MacDonald MG. Atlas of procedures in neonatology. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2002. 173–181 p.
  5. Harabor A, Soraisham A. Rates of intracardiac umbilical venous catheter placement in neonates. J Ultrasound Med 2014;33(9):1557–1562. DOI: 10.7863/ultra.33.9.1557.
  6. Karber BCF, Nielsen JC, Balsam D, et al. Optimal radiologic position of an umbilical venous catheter tip as determined by echocardiography in very low birth weight newborns. J Neonatal Perinatal Med 2017;10(1):55–61. DOI: 10.3233/NPM-1642.
  7. Soares BN, Pissarra S, Rouxinol-Dias AL, et al. Complications of central lines in neonates admitted to a level III neonatal intensive care unit. J Matern Neonatal Med [Internet]. 2018;31(20):2770–2776. DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2017.1355902.
  8. Levit OL, Shabanova V, Bizzarro MJ. Umbilical catheter-associated complications in a level IV neonatal intensive care unit. J Perinatol 2020;40(4):573–580. DOI: 10.1038/s41372-019-0579-3.
  9. Verheij G, Smits-Wintjens V, Rozendaal L, et al. Cardiac arrhythmias associated with umbilical venous catheterisation in neonates. BMJ Case Rep 2009;1–8. DOI: 10.1136/bcr.04.2009.1778.
  10. Sheta A, Al-Awad E, Soraisham A. Supraventricular tachycardia associated with umbilical venous catheterization in neonates. J Clin Neonatol 2018;7(3):166–169. DOI: 10.4103/jcn.JCN_127_17.
  11. Sehgal A, Cook V, Dunn M. Pericardial effusion associated with an appropriately placed umbilical venous catheter. J Perinatol 2007;27(5):317–319. DOI:10.1038/sj.jp.7211678.
  12. Abdellatif M, Ahmed A, Alsenaidi K. Cardiac tamponade due to umbilical venous catheter in the new born. BMJ Case Rep 2012;8–10. DOI:10.1136/bcr-2012-6160.
  13. Abiramalatha T, Kumar M, Shabeer MP, et al. Advantages of being diligent: lessons learnt from umbilical venous catheterisation in neonates. BMJ Case Rep 2016;2016:1–6.
  14. Grizelj R, Vukovic J, Bojanic K, et al. Severe liver injury while using umbilical venous catheter: case series and literature review. Am J Perinatol 2014;31(11):965–974. DOI:10.1055/s-0034-1370346.
  15. Unal S, Arifoglu İ, Çelik İH, et al. Pleural and pericardiac effusion as a complication of properly placed umbilical venous catheter. J Neonatal Surg 2017;6(2):34. DOI:10.21699/jns.v6i2.508.
  16. Abiramalatha T, Kumar M, Shabeer MP anangand. Pleural effusion caused by a malpositioned umbilical venous catheter in a neonate. BMJ Case Rep 2015;2015:1–4. DOI:10.1136/bcr-2015-212705.
  17. Hocevar SN, Edwards JR, Horan TC, et al. Device-associated infections among neonatal intensive care unit patients: incidence and associated pathogens reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network, 2006–2008. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33(12):1200–1206. DOI:10.1086/668425.
  18. Shalabi M, Adel M, Yoon E, et al. Risk of infection using peripherally inserted central and umbilical catheters in preterm neonates. Pediatrics 2015;136(6):1073–1039. DOI:10.1542/peds.2015-2710.
  19. Horan TC, Andrus M, Dudeck MA. CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of health care-associated infection and criteria for specific types of infections in the acute care setting. Am J Infect Control 2008;36(5):309–332. DOI:10.1016/j.ajic.2008.03.002.
  20. Dunn PM. Localization of the umbilical catheter by post-mortem measurement. Arch Dis Child 1966;41(215):69–75. DOI:10.1136/adc.41.215.69.
  21. Shukla H, Ferrara A. Rapid estimation of insertional length of umbilical catheters in newborns. Am J Dis Child 1986;140(8):786–788. DOI:10.1001/archpedi.1986.02140220068034.
  22. Lean WL, Dawson JA, Davis PG, et al. Accuracy of five formulae to determine the insertion length of umbilical venous catheters. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2019;104(2):F165–F169. DOI:10.1136/archdischild-2017-314280.
  23. Mutlu M, Küçükalioğlu Parıltan B, Aslan Y, et al. Comparison of methods and formulas used in umbilical venous catheter placement. Turk Pediatr Ars 2017;52(1):35–42. DOI:10.5152/TurkPediatriArs.2017.4912.
  24. Akar S, Dincer E, Topcuoğlu S, et al. Determination of accurate position of umbilical venous catheters in premature infants. Am J Perinatol 2020;1(212). DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1716405.
  25. Kishigami M, Shimokaze T, Enomoto M, et al. Ultrasound-guided umbilical venous catheter insertion with alignment of the umbilical vein and ductus venosus. J Ultrasound Med 2020;39(2):379–383. DOI: 10.1002/jum.15106.
  26. Franta J, Harabor A, Soraisham AS. Ultrasound assessment of umbilical venous catheter migration in preterm infants: A prospective study. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2017;102(3):F251–F255. DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2016-311202.
  27. Chen HJ, Chao HC, Chiang MC, et al. Hepatic extravasation complicated by umbilical venous catheterization in neonates: a 5-year, single-center experience. Pediatr Neonatol 2020;61(1):16–24. DOI: 10.1016/j.pedneo.2019.05.004.
  28. Moens E, Dooy JD, Jansens H, et al. Hepatic abscesses associated with umbilical catheterization in two neonates. Eur J Pediatr 2003;162(6):406–409. DOI: 10.1007/s00431-003-1178-y.
  29. Leveillee A, Lapointe A, Lachance C, et al. Assessing effect of catheter type and position on central line-associated bloodstream infections in the NICU. Paediatr Child Health 2018;23(suppl_1):e59–e59. DOI: 10.1093/pch/pxy054.149.
  30. Meyer WW, Lind J. The ductus venosus and the mechanism of its closure. Arch Dis Child 1966;41(220):597–605. DOI:10.1136/adc.41.220.597.
  31. Martin BF, Tudor RG. The umbilical and paraumbilical veins of man. J Anat [Internet] 1980;130(Pt 2):305–22.
  32. Fugelseth D, Lindemann R, Liestøl K, et al. Ultrasonographic study of ductus venosus in healthy neonates. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 1997;77(2):131–134. DOI: 10.1136/fn.77.2.F131.
  33. Kondo M, Itoh S, Kunikata T, et al. Time of closure of ductus venosus in term and preterm neonates. Arch Dis Child 2001;85(1):57–59. DOI:10.1136/fn.85.1.F57.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.