Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheters Are Not Superior to Central Venous Catheters in the Acute Care of Surgical Patients on the Ward
- First Online:
- 927 Downloads
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
upper extremity deep venous thrombosis
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 65.Marino PL. The indwelling vascular catheter. In: Zinner Sharon R, editor. The ICU Book, 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1998;90Google Scholar
- 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.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
- 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