Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 44, Issue 2, pp 187–192 | Cite as

Greater saphenous venous access as an alternative in children

  • David J. Aria
  • Seth Vatsky
  • Robin Kaye
  • Carrie Schaefer
  • Richard Towbin
Original Article

Abstract

Background

In the pediatric population, obtaining venous access in high-risk neonates, severely ill children with cardiac anomalies or very young children (<10 kg) can be very challenging. In the literature to date, the greater saphenous vein has not been primarily used by interventional radiologists as an entry site for venous access in children.

Objective

To demonstrate the utility and effectiveness of using the greater saphenous vein as a venous access site for the placement of peripherally inserted central catheters in children.

Materials and methods

This is a retrospective study from a large tertiary care children’s hospital from November 2010 to August 2012. Peripheral insertion of central venous catheters (PICC) using the greater saphenous vein was attempted in 86 children ranging in age from 3 days to 17 years (mean: 1.8 years). Indications included congenital heart disease, urinary tract infection, intravenous access, pneumonia, meningitis, total parenteral nutrition, sepsis and other infections. All procedures were performed by interventional radiologists. No insertion-related complications were identified. There was no follow-up planning, but no mechanical or infectious complications were brought to our attention.

Results

Of the 86 patients in whom PICC placement was attempted, placement was successful in 67 (78%). Forty-two PICCs were placed in the greater saphenous vein at the thigh level using US guidance and 25 at the ankle level using anatomical landmarks. The mean weight of the 67 patients who underwent successful placement was 9.98 kg, with 51 (76%) weighing <10 kg. The mean vessel diameter in placement failures was 1.35 mm compared to 1.83 mm in successful placement. Inability to obtain venous access was the cause of failure in all thigh access sites while inability to advance the catheter centrally was the cause of failure for all ankle access sites. A total of 1,060 catheter days (with a maximum dwell time of 97 days in one patient) were reviewed without complication.

Conclusion

In children, the greater saphenous vein provides a safe, suitable alternative for venous access, particularly in very young children (<10 kg) and in a select group of older children who are not mobile. In the lower extremities, greater saphenous venous puncture and access may be a preferred initial access site in small children to preserve future venous access.

Keywords

Saphenous vein Venous access Peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) Interventional radiology Children 

References

  1. 1.
    Tan LH (2007) Survey of the use of peripherally inserted central venous catheters in neonates with critical congenital heart disease. Cardiol Young 17:196–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hoang V, Sills J, Chandler M et al (2008) Percutaneously inserted central catheter for total parenteral nutrition in neonates: complications rates related to upper versus lower extremity insertion. Pediatrics 12:e1152–e1159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wrightson DD (2013) Peripherally inserted central catheter complications in neonates with upper versus lower extremity insertion sites. Adv Neonatal Care 13:198–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pirotte T (2008) Ultrasound-guided vascular access in adults and children: beyond the internal jugular vein puncture. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg 59:157–166PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pettit J, Wyckoff MM (2007) Peripherally inserted central catheters: guidelines for practice, 2nd edn. National Association of Neonatal Nurses, GlenviewGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Racadio JM, Johnson ND, Doellman DA (1999) Peripherally inserted central venous catheters: success of scalp-vein access in infants and newborns. Radiology 210:858–860PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Janes M, Kalyn A, Pinelli J et al (2000) A randomized trial comparing peripherally inserted central venous catheters and peripheral intravenous catheters in infants with very low birth weight. J Pediatr Surg 35:1040–1044PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Durand M, Martinelli B, Ramanathan R et al (1986) Prospective evaluation of percutaneous central venous silastic catheters in newborn infants with birth weights of 510 to 3920 grams. Pediatrics 78:245–250PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cartwright DW (2004) Central venous lines in neonates: a study of 2186 catheters. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 89:F504–F508PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    King DS (2010) A model for a nurse-led programme of bedside placement of peripherally inserted central catheters in neonates and infants with congenital cardiac disease. Cardiol Young 20:302–307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Du L, Redmond K, Johnstone S et al (2008) Saphenous vein peripherally inserted central catheters: technique, indications and safety issues. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 52:68–71. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1673.2007.01914.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Johnson EM, Saltzman DA, Suh G et al (1998) Complications and risks of central venous catheter placement in children. Surgery 124:911–916PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eisen LA, Narasimhan M, Berger JS et al (2006) Mechanical complications of central venous catheters. J Intensive Care Med 21:40–46. doi:10.1177/0885066605280884 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Allen AW, Megargell JL, Brown DB et al (2000) Venous thrombosis associated with the placement of peripherally inserted central catheters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 11:1309–1314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Loughran SC, Borzatta M (1995) Peripherally inserted central catheters: a report of 2506 catheter days. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 19:133–136Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barrier A (2012) Frequency of peripherally inserted central catheter complications in children. Pediatr Infect Dis J 31:519–521PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • David J. Aria
    • 1
  • Seth Vatsky
    • 1
  • Robin Kaye
    • 1
  • Carrie Schaefer
    • 1
  • Richard Towbin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyPhoenix Children’s HospitalPhoenixUSA

Personalised recommendations