World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 30, Issue 8, pp 1605–1619

Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheters Are Not Superior to Central Venous Catheters in the Acute Care of Surgical Patients on the Ward




Peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) have supplanted central venous catheters (CVC) for the administration of intravenous antibiotics and total parenteral nutrition to patients in our hospital. From the literature, it appears that this change has occurred in a number of other surgical units. Accounting for the change are the expected advantages of low complication rates at insertion, prolonged use without complications and interruption, and cost- and time-savings.


We have proceeded with a review of the literature to understand and justify this change in practice. Our hypothesis was that the routine adoption of PICC instead of CVC for the acute care of surgical patients has occurred in the absence of strong scientific evidence. Our aim was to compare the associated infectious, thrombotic, phlebitic, and other common complications, as well as PICC and CVC durability. Articles concerning various aspects of PICC- and CVC-related complications in the acute care of adult patients were selected from the literature. Studies were excluded when they primarily addressed the use of long-term catheters, outpatient care, and pediatric patients. Data were extracted from 48 papers published between 1979 and 2004.


Our results show that infectious complications do not significantly differ between PICC and CVC. Thrombotic complications appear to be more significant with PICC and to occur early after catheterization. Phlebitic complications accounted for premature catheter removal in approximately 6% of PICC. Finally, prospective data suggest that approximately 40% of PICC will have to be removed before completion of therapy, possibly more often and earlier than CVC.


We believe that there is no clear evidence that PICC is superior to CVC in acute care settings. Each approach offers its own advantages and a different profile of complications. Therefore, the choice of central venous access should be individualized for surgical patients on the ward. More comparative prospective studies are needed to document the advantages of PICC over CVC.





Catheter-related bloodstream infection


Catheter-related infection


siliconized polyethylene


Risk ratio


Silicone elastomer


upper extremity deep venous thrombosis


  1. 1.
    Hoshal VL. Total intravenous nutrition with peripherally inserted silicone elastomer central venous catheters. Arch Surg 1975;110:644–646PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ng PK, Ault MJ, Ellrodt AG, et al. Peripherally inserted central catheter in general medicine. Mayo Clin Proc 1997;72:225–233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cheong K, Perry D, Karapetis C, et al. High rate of complications associated with peripherally inserted central venous catheters in patients with solid tumours. Intern Med J 2004;34:234–238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Walshe LJ, Malak SF, Eagan J, et al. Complication rates among cancer patients with peripherally inserted central catheters. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:3276–3281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Snelling R, Jones G, Figueredo A, et al. Central venous catheters for infusion therapy in gastrointestinal cancer. A comparative study of tunnelled centrally placed catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters. J Intraven Nurs 2001;24:38–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Allen AW, Megargell JL, Brown DB, et al. Venous thrombosis associated with the placement of peripherally inserted central catheters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2000;11:1309–1314PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Smith JR, Friedell ML, Cheatham ML, et al. Peripherally inserted central catheters revisited. Am J Surg 1998;176:208–211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA 1992;268:2420–2425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McGee DC, Gould MK. Preventing complications on central venous catheterization/Current concepts. N Engl J Med 2003;348:1123–1133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vanek VW. The ins and outs of venous access: Part I. Nutr Clin Pract 2002;17:85–98PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vanek VW. The ins and outs of venous access: Part II. Nutr Clin Pract 2002;17:142–155PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Orr ME. The peripherally inserted central catheter: what are the current indictions for its use? Nutr Clin Pract 2002;17:99–104PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Orr ME, Ryder MA. Vascular access devices: perspectives on designs, complications, and management. Nutr Clin Pract 1993; 8:145–152PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Morbidi Mortal Weekly Rep 2002;51(RR10):1–26Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pearson ML. Guidelines for prevention of intravascular device-related infections. Part I. Intravascular device-related infection: an overview. The Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Am J Infect Control 1996;24:262–277PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Geerts WH, Heit JA, Clagett GP, et al. Prevention of venous thromboembolism. Chest 2001;119(1 Suppl):132S–175SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cowl CT, Weinstock JV, Al-Jurf A, et al. Complications and cost associated with parenteral nutrition delivered to hospitalized patients through either subclavian or peripherally-inserted central catheters. Clin Nutr 2000;19:237–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Duerksen DR, Papineau N, Siemens J, et al. Peripherally inserted central catheters for parenteral nutrition: a comparison with centrally inserted catheters. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1999;3:85–89Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Alhimyary A, Fernandez C, Picard M, et al. Safety and efficacy of TPN delivered via a peripherally inserted central venous catheter. Nutr Clin Pract 1996;11:199–203PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Merrer J, De Jonghe B, Golliot F, et al. Complications of femoral and subclavian venous catheterization in critically ill patients: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2001;286:700–707PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Maki DG, Stolz SM, Wheeler S, et al. Prevention of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection by use of an antiseptic-impregnated catheter: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:257–266PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Collin GR. Decreasing catheter colonization through the use of an antiseptic-impregnated catheter: a continuous quality improvement project. Chest 1999;115:1632–1640PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Raad I, Darouiche R, Dupuis J, et al. Central venous catheters coated with minocycline and rifampin for the prevention of catheter-related colonization and bloodstream infections. A randomized, double-blind trial. The Texas Medical Center Catheter Study Group. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:267–274PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Raad II, Hohn DC, Gilbreath BJ, et al. Prevention of central venous catheter-related infections by using maximal sterile barrier precautions during insertion. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994;15:231–238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ma TY, Yoshinaka R, Banaag A, et al. Total parenteral nutrition via multilumen catheters does not increase the risk of catheter-related sepsis: a randomized prospective study. Clin Infect Dis 1998;27:500–503PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Farkas JC, Liu N, Bleriot JP, et al. Single- versus triple-lumen central catheter-related sepsis: a prospective randomized study in a critically ill population. Am J Med 1992;93:277–282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Clark-Christoff N, Watters VA, Sparks W, et al. Use of triple-lumen subclavian catheters for administration of total parenteral nutrition. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1992;16:403–407Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    McCarthy MC, Shives JK, Robison RJ, et al. Prospective evaluation of single and triple lumen catheters in TPN. J Parenteral Enteral Nutr 1987;16:203–207Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Maki DG, Botticelli JT, LeRoy ML, et al. Prospective study of replacing administration sets for intravenous therapy at 48- vs 72-hour intervals. JAMA 1987;258:1777–1781PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chaiyakunapruk N, Veenstra DL, Lipsky BA, et al. Chlorhexidine compared with povidone-iodine solution for vascular catheter-site care: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2002;136:792–801PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mermel LA. Prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:391–402PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Veenstra DL, Saint S, Saha S, et al. Efficacy of antiseptic-impregnated central venous catheters in preventing catheter-related bloodstream infection: a meta-analysis. JAMA 1999;281:261–267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hoffmann KK, Weber DJ, Samsa GP, et al. Transparent polyurethane film as an intravenous catheter dressing: a meta-analysis of the infection risks. JAMA 1992;267:2072–2076PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gillies D, O’Riordan L, Carr D, et al. Gauze and tape and transparent polyurethane dressings for central venous catheters. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Cochrane Wounds Group, 2003Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cook D, Randolph A, Kernerman P, et al. Central venous catheter replacement strategies: a systematic review of the literature. Crit Care Med 1997;25:1417–1424PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Timsit JF, Farkas JC, Boyer JM, et al. Central vein catheter-related thrombosis in intensive care patients: incidence, risk factors, and relationship with catheter-related sepsis. Chest 1998;114:207–213PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sitges-Serra A. Hub colonization as the initial step in outbreaks of catheter-related sepsis due to coagulase-negative staphylococci during parenteral nutrition. J Parenteral Enteral Nutr 1984;8:668–672Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Joffe HV, Kucher N, Tapson VF, et al. Upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis: a prospective registry of 592 patients. Circulation 2004;110:1605–1611PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Raad II, Luna M, Khalil SA, et al. The relationship between the thrombotic and infectious complications of central venous catheters. JAMA 1994;271:1014–1016PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Loewenthal MR, Dobson PM, Starkey RE, et al. The peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC): a prospective study of its natural history after cubital fossa insertion. Anaesth Intensive Care 2002;30:21–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fong NI, Holtzman SR, Bettman MA, et al. Peripherally inserted central catheters: outcome as a function of the operator. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2001; 12:723–729PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kearns PJ, Coleman S, Wehner JH. Complications of long-arm catheters: a randomized trial of central vs peripheral tip location. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1996;20:20–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Linder LE, Curelaru I, Gustavsson B, et al. Material thrombogenicity in central venous catheterization: a comparison between soft, antebrachial catheters of silicone elastomer and polyurethane. J Parenteral Enteral Nutr 1984;8:399–406Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Curelaru I, Gustavsson B, Hansson AH, et al. Material thrombogenicity in central venous catheterization II. A comparison between plain silicone elastomer, and plain polyethylene, long, antebrachial catheters. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1983;27:158–164PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bennegard K, Curelaru I, Gustavsson B, et al. Material thrombogenicity in central venous catheterization. I. A comparison between uncoated and heparin-coated, long antebrachial, polyethylene catheters. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1982;26:112–120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bottino J, McCredie KB, Groschel DH, et al. Long-term intravenous therapy with peripherally inserted silicone elastomer central venous catheters in patients with malignant diseases. Cancer 1979;43:1937–1943PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Penney-Timmons E, Sevedge S. Outcome data for peripherally inserted central catheters used in an acute care setting. J Infus Nurs 2004;27:431–436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Chemaly RF, de Parres JB, Rehm SJ, et al. Venous thrombosis associated with peripherally inserted central catheters: a retrospective analysis of the Cleveland Clinic experience. Clin Infect Dis 2002;34:1179–1183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Grove JR, Pevec WC. Venous thrombosis related to peripherally inserted central catheters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2000;11:837–840PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Cardella JF, Cardella K, Bacci N, et al. Cumulative experience with 1273 peripherally inserted central catheters at a single institution. J Vasc Radiol 1996;7:5–13Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Loughran SC, Borzatta M. Peripherally inserted central catheters: a report of 2506 catheter days. J Parenteral Enteral Nutr 1995;19:133–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lam S, Scannel R, Roessler D, et al. Peripherally inserted central catheters in an acute-care hospital. Arch Intern Med 1994;154:1833–1837PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Horattas MC, Trupiano J, Hopkins S, et al. Changing concepts in long-term central venous access: catheter selection and cost savings. Am J Infect Control 2001;29:32–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Neuman ML, Murphy BD, Rosen MP. Bedside placement of peripherally inserted central catheters: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Radiology 1998;206:423–428PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ritchey NP, Caccamo LP, Carter KJ, et al. Optimal interval for triple-lumen catheter changes: a decisional analysis. Med Decis Making 1995;15:138–142PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Saint S, Veenstra DL, Lipsky BA. The clinical and economic consequences of nosocomial central venous catheter-related infection: are antimicrobial catheters useful? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000;21:375–380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Raad I, Davis S, Becker M, et al. Low infection rate and long durability of nontunneled Silastic catheters: a safe and cost-effective alternative for long-term venous access. Arch Intern Med 1993;153:1791–1796PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) Report, data summary from October 1986–April 1997, issued May 1997. A report from the NNIS System. Am J Infect Control 1997;25:477–487Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Deitcher SR, Fesen MR, Kiproff PM, et al. Safety and efficacy of alteplase for restoring function in occluded central venous catheters: results of the Cardiovascular Thrombolytic to Open Occluded Lines Trial (COOL II). J Clin Oncol 2002;20:317–324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Pasquale MD, Campbell JM, Magnant CM. Groshong versus Hickman catheters. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1992;174:408–410PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Sznajder JI, Zveibil FR, Bitterman H, et al. Central vein catheterization: failure and complication rates by three percutaneous approaches. Arch Intern Med 1986;146:259–261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Randolph AG, Cook DJ, Gonzales CA, et al. Ultrasound guidance for placement of central venous catheters: a meta-analysis of the literature. Crit Care Med 1996;24:2053–2058PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Mansfield PF, Hohn DC, Fornage BD, et al. Complications and failures of subclavian-vein catheterization. N Eng J Med 1994;331:1735–1738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Maki DG, Weise CE, Sarafin HW. A semiquantitative culture method for identifying intravenous-catheter-related infection. N Engl J Med 1977;296:1305–1309PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Marino PL. The indwelling vascular catheter. In: Zinner Sharon R, editor. The ICU Book, 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1998;90Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Curtas S, Tramposch K. Culture methods to evaluate central venous catheter sepsis. Nutr Clin Pract 1991;6:43–48PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Golledge C, McPherson MM. Skin entry site swabbing a poor predictor of catheter-related sepsis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1988;9:54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Groeger JS, Lucas AB, Coit D, et al. A prospective, randomized evaluation of the effect of silver impregnated subcutaneous cuffs for preventing tunneled chronic venous access catheter infections in cancer patients. Ann Surg 1993;218:206–210PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Norwood S, Hajjar G, Jenkins L. The influence of an attachable subcutaneous cuff for preventing triple lumen catheter infections in critically ill surgical and trauma patients. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1992;175:33–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Flowers RH, Schwenzer KJ, Kopel RF, et al. Efficacy of an attachable subcutaneous cuff for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infection. A randomized, controlled trial. JAMA 1989;262:613–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Sitges-Serra A, Linares J. Tunnels do not protect against venous-catheter-related sepsis. Lancet 1984;1:459–460PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Prandoni P, Polistena P, Bernardi E, et al. Upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis. Risk factors, diagnosis and complications. Arch Intern Med 1997;157:57–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Couban S, Goodyear M, Burnell M, et al. A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study of low dose warfarin for the prevention of symptomatic central venous catheter associated thrombosis in patients with cancer [abstract]. Blood 2002;100(suppl):703aGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Reichardt P, Kretzschmar A, Biakhov M, et al. A phase III double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluating the efficacy and safety of daily low-molecular-weight heparin (dalteparin sodium, Fragmin) in preventing catheter-related complications in cancer patients with central venous catheters [abstract]. Clin Oncol 2002;21:1474Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Heaton DC, Han DY, Inder A. Minidose (1 mg) warfarin as prophylaxis for central vein catheter thrombosis. Intern Med J 2002;32:84–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Bern MM, Lokich JJ, Wallach SR, et al. Very low doses of warfarin can prevent thrombosis in central venous catheters. A randomized prospective trial. Ann Intern Med 1990;112:423–428PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Randolph AG, Cook DJ, Gonzales CA, et al. Benefit of heparin in central venous and pulmonary artery catheters: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Chest 1998;113:165–171PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Monreal M, Alastrue A, Rull M, et al. Upper extremity deep venous thrombosis in cancer patients with venous access devices—prophylaxis with a low molecular weight heparin (Fragmin). Thromb Haemost 1996;42:251–253Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département de ChirurgieHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont, Centre affilié à I’Université de MontréalMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations