Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33856335›Full record

ArticleThe western journal of emergency medicine2021

Central Venous Catheter Adverse Events Are not Associated with Crowding Indicators.

Daniel L Theodoro, Niraj Vyas, Enyo Ablordeppey, Brian Bausano, Stephanie Charshafian, Phillip Asaro, Richard T Griffey

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 99% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel L TheodoroWashington University School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Niraj VyasUniversity of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Penn Acute Research Collaboration (PARC), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Enyo AblordeppeyWashington University School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Brian BausanoWashington University School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Stephanie CharshafianWashington University School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Phillip AsaroWashington University School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Richard T GriffeyWashington University School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
University of Pennsylvania · USWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveCrowding in the emergency department (ED) impacts a number of important quality and safety metrics. We studied ED crowding measures associated with adverse events (AE) resulting from central venous catheters (CVC) inserted in the ED, as well as the relationship between crowding and the frequency of CVC insertions in an ED cohort admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU).

methodsWe conducted a retrospective observational study from 2008-2010 in an academic tertiary care center. Participants undergoing CVC in the ED or admitted to an ICU were categorized by quartile based on the following: National Emergency Department Overcrowding Scale (NEDOCS); waiting room patients (WR); ED patients awaiting inpatient beds (boarders); and ED occupancy (EDO). Main outcomes were the occurrence of an AE during CVC insertion in the ED, and deferred procedures assessed by frequency of CVC insertions in ED patients admitted to the ICU.

resultsOf 2,284 ED patients who had a CVC inserted, 293 (13%) suffered an AE. There was no association between AEs from ED CVCs and crowding scales when comparing the highest crowding level or quartile to all other quartiles: NEDOCS (dangerous crowding [13.1%] vs other levels [13.0%], P = 0.98); number of WR patients (14.0% vs 12.7%, P = 0.81); EDO (13.0% vs 12.9%, P = 0.99); and number of boarding patients (12.0% vs 13.3%), P = 0.21). In a cohort of ED patients admitted to the ICU, there was no association between CVC placement rates in the ED and crowding scales comparing the highest vs all other quartiles: NEDOCS (dangerous crowding 16% vs all others 16%, P = 0.97); WR patients (16% vs 16%, P = 0.82), EDO (15% vs. 17%, P = 0.15); and number of boarding patients (17% vs 16%, P = 0.08).

conclusionIn a large, academic tertiary-care center, frequency of CVC insertion in the ED and related AEs were not associated with measures of crowding. These findings add to the evidence that the negative effects of crowding, which impact all ED patients and measures of ED performance, are less likely to impair the delivery of prioritized time-critical interventions.

Indexed as

Central Venous CathetersCrowdingEmergency Service, HospitalQuality of Health CareFemaleHumansMaleOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient SafetyRetrospective StudiesTertiary Care CentersUnited States

Identifiers

PMID33856335
PMCPMC7972355
OpenAlexW3124322566

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.