Copyright 2015 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use.
To the Editor I applaud the new series “Less Is More,” which highlights the concept of cost-conscious care in a concise, reader-friendly format.
In their article demonstrating the costs associated with central venous catheters (CVCs), Patel et al1 suggest that an internal jugular vein site decreases the risk of infection compared with a subclavian vein site. Recognizably, the data on catheter-related complications is plentiful but mostly not conclusive.2,3 Several confounders exist that confuse the picture and require that recommendations be made for specific scenarios (eg, medical vs surgical or trauma intensive care vs other hospitalized patients vs ambulatory patients; cancer vs noncancer patients; hemodialysis vs nonhemodialysis patients; implantable vs tunneled vs peripherally inserted catheters). In addition, the results might vary on the basis of different outcomes, ie, bloodstream infection, thrombosis, and venous stenosis.
de Almeida KNF. Insertion Site for Central Venous Catheters. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(5):861. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.39