Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheter Safety in Burn Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line for central venous access in thermally injured patients has increased in recent years despite a lack of evidence regarding safety in this patient population. A recent survey of invasive catheter practices among 44 burn centers in the United States found that 37% of burn units use PICC lines as part of their treatment protocol. The goal of this study was to compare PICC-associated complication rates with the existing literature in both the critical care and burn settings. The methodology involved is a single institution retrospective cohort review of patients who received a PICC line during admission to a regional burn unit between 2008 and 2013. Fifty-three patients were identified with a total of seventy-three PICC lines. The primary outcome measurement for this study was indication for PICC line discontinuation. The most common reason for PICC line discontinuation was that the line was no longer indicated (45.2%). Four cases of symptomatic upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (5.5%) and three cases of central line-associated bloodstream infection (4.3%, 2.72 infections per 1000 line days) were identified. PICC lines were in situ an average of 15 days (range 1 to 49 days). We suggest that PICC line-associated complication rates are similar to those published in the critical care literature. Though these rates are higher than those published in the burn literature, they are similar to central venous catheter-associated complication rates. While PICC lines can be a useful resource in the treatment of the thermally injured patient, they are associated with significant and potentially fatal risks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".