Jin, Mauricio F.

BACKGROUND Dermatologic surgeons are faced with a dilemma when counseling actively smoking patients who require dermatologic surgery: recommend total cessation of all nicotine that is associated with extremely high rates of cessation failure or recommend nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). OBJECTIVE To determine the safety of NRT in dermatologic surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS PubMed was queried: [(nicotine OR electronic cigarettes) AND (flap OR wound healing)]. RESULTS Smoking tobacco is detrimental to wound healing, supported by ample evidence (1A). Perioperative smoking cessation reduces risk (1B). Basic science demonstrates both a benefit and detriment of nicotine depending on the factor studied (2A). Human studies suggest no detrimental effect of nicotine on perioperative complications (1B). Nicotine may be detrimental to flaps, but evidence is limited to basic science (2A). CONCLUSION Dermatologists should consider recommending nicotine replacement for smokers in the perioperative period. Evidence is lacking to determine safety in flaps. It is presumed based on animal studies that nicotine has a negative effect on flaps; however, it is likely less than tobacco. Weighing the risk of cessation failure without nicotine replacement versus nicotine replacement after flap is challenging. Electronic cigarettes should be discouraged as a means of NRT.

Background: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) are occasionally placed in the great saphenous vein (GSV) and anterior accessory great saphenous vein (AAGSV) in patients with inadequate upper extremity veins or contraindications to upper extremity placement. Outcomes on the placement of PICCs in these veins are limited. Objectives: This study aimed to determine technical success and safety of GSV/AAGSV PICCs. Materials and methods: This is a retrospective study that reviewed all GSV/AAGSV PICC placements between January 2011 and December 2019. A total of 29 PICC placements procedures were identified. The electronic medical record was queried for demographic, procedural, and complication data. Technical success was defined by whether the vein could be accessed and a PICC could be placed. Catheter-associated infections, dislodgement or migration, malfunction, and PICC-associated thrombosis were recorded. Results: Technical success of placement was 100%. Twenty-one (72%) catheters were placed in the GSV in the mid to upper thigh and eight (28%) were placed in the AAGSV. The median PICC dwell time was 13 days with a range of 3–155 days. PICC-associated complications occurred after 11 (37.9%) placements. Line associated infection was the most common complication (17.2%). Conclusion: Due to a high complication rate, GSV/AAGSV PICC placement should be considered only when upper extremity or cervical PICC placement is not feasible or contraindicated.