Bleeding assessment following central venous catheter placement, a direct comparison of prospective and retrospective analyses

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundReported bleeding incidences following central venous catheter (CVC) placement highly depend on methods of bleeding assessment. To determine the direction and magnitude of the bias associated with retrospective data collection, we used data from the PACER randomized controlled trial and a previous retrospective cohort study.Study Design and MethodsA patient‐level comparison of CVC‐related bleeding severity was made among (1) the prospectively collected clinical bleeding assessment of the PACER trial, (2) centralized assessment of CVC insertion site photographs, and (3) retrospective chart review. Interrater reliability for photographic bleeding assessment and retrospective chart review was assessed using Cohen's κ. The magnitude of underreporting of both methods compared to prospective clinical bleeding assessment at different cutoff points of clinically relevant bleeding was assessed using McNemar's test.ResultsInterrater reliability was acceptable for both methods (κ = 0.583 and κ = 0.481 for photographic assessment and retrospective chart review, respectively). Photographic bleeding assessment led to significant underreporting of bleeding complications at all cutoff points. Retrospective chart review led to significant underreporting of minor bleeding complications, with an odds ratio (95% CI) of 0.17 (0.044–0.51) for the cutoff point grade 1 (i.e., self‐limiting or requiring at most 20 min of manual compression) or higher. There was no significant underreporting of major bleeding complications with retrospective chart review.DiscussionCentralized photographic bleeding assessment and retrospective chart review lead to biased bleeding assessment compared to prospective clinical bleeding assessment.