Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

Cd::

Catheter-day

CR-BSI::

Catheter-related bloodstream infection

CR-I::

Catheter-related infection

PE::

siliconized polyethylene

RR::

Risk ratio

SE::

Silicone elastomer

UE-DVT::

upper extremity deep venous thrombosis

References

  1. Hoshal VL. Total intravenous nutrition with peripherally inserted silicone elastomer central venous catheters. Arch Surg 1975;110:644–646

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ng PK, Ault MJ, Ellrodt AG, et al. Peripherally inserted central catheter in general medicine. Mayo Clin Proc 1997;72:225–233

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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;34:234–238

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Walshe LJ, Malak SF, Eagan J, et al. Complication rates among cancer patients with peripherally inserted central catheters. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:3276–3281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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;24:38–47

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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;11:1309–1314

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Smith JR, Friedell ML, Cheatham ML, et al. Peripherally inserted central catheters revisited. Am J Surg 1998;176:208–211

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA 1992;268:2420–2425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. McGee DC, Gould MK. Preventing complications on central venous catheterization/Current concepts. N Engl J Med 2003;348:1123–1133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Vanek VW. The ins and outs of venous access: Part I. Nutr Clin Pract 2002;17:85–98

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Vanek VW. The ins and outs of venous access: Part II. Nutr Clin Pract 2002;17:142–155

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Orr ME. The peripherally inserted central catheter: what are the current indictions for its use? Nutr Clin Pract 2002;17:99–104

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Orr ME, Ryder MA. Vascular access devices: perspectives on designs, complications, and management. Nutr Clin Pract 1993; 8:145–152

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Morbidi Mortal Weekly Rep 2002;51(RR10):1–26

    Google Scholar 

  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;24:262–277

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Geerts WH, Heit JA, Clagett GP, et al. Prevention of venous thromboembolism. Chest 2001;119(1 Suppl):132S–175S

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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;19:237–243

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google 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;3:85–89

    Google Scholar 

  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;11:199–203

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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;286:700–707

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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;127:257–266

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Collin GR. Decreasing catheter colonization through the use of an antiseptic-impregnated catheter: a continuous quality improvement project. Chest 1999;115:1632–1640

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google 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;127:267–274

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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;15:231–238

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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;27:500–503

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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;93:277–282

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google 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;16:403–407

    CAS  Google 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;16:203–207

    Google Scholar 

  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;258:1777–1781

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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;136:792–801

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Mermel LA. Prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:391–402

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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;281:261–267

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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;267:2072–2076

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google 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, 2003

  35. Cook D, Randolph A, Kernerman P, et al. Central venous catheter replacement strategies: a systematic review of the literature. Crit Care Med 1997;25:1417–1424

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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;114:207–213

    PubMed  CAS  Google 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;8:668–672

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Joffe HV, Kucher N, Tapson VF, et al. Upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis: a prospective registry of 592 patients. Circulation 2004;110:1605–1611

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Raad II, Luna M, Khalil SA, et al. The relationship between the thrombotic and infectious complications of central venous catheters. JAMA 1994;271:1014–1016

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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;30:21–24

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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; 12:723–729

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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;20:20–24

    PubMed  CAS  Google 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;8:399–406

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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;27:158–164

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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;26:112–120

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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;43:1937–1943

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Penney-Timmons E, Sevedge S. Outcome data for peripherally inserted central catheters used in an acute care setting. J Infus Nurs 2004;27:431–436

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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;34:1179–1183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Grove JR, Pevec WC. Venous thrombosis related to peripherally inserted central catheters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2000;11:837–840

    PubMed  CAS  Google 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;7:5–13

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Loughran SC, Borzatta M. Peripherally inserted central catheters: a report of 2506 catheter days. J Parenteral Enteral Nutr 1995;19:133–136

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Lam S, Scannel R, Roessler D, et al. Peripherally inserted central catheters in an acute-care hospital. Arch Intern Med 1994;154:1833–1837

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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;29:32–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Neuman ML, Murphy BD, Rosen MP. Bedside placement of peripherally inserted central catheters: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Radiology 1998;206:423–428

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Ritchey NP, Caccamo LP, Carter KJ, et al. Optimal interval for triple-lumen catheter changes: a decisional analysis. Med Decis Making 1995;15:138–142

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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;21:375–380

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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;153:1791–1796

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google 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;25:477–487

    Google Scholar 

  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;20:317–324

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Pasquale MD, Campbell JM, Magnant CM. Groshong versus Hickman catheters. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1992;174:408–410

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Sznajder JI, Zveibil FR, Bitterman H, et al. Central vein catheterization: failure and complication rates by three percutaneous approaches. Arch Intern Med 1986;146:259–261

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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;24:2053–2058

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Mansfield PF, Hohn DC, Fornage BD, et al. Complications and failures of subclavian-vein catheterization. N Eng J Med 1994;331:1735–1738

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Maki DG, Weise CE, Sarafin HW. A semiquantitative culture method for identifying intravenous-catheter-related infection. N Engl J Med 1977;296:1305–1309

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Marino PL. The indwelling vascular catheter. In: Zinner Sharon R, editor. The ICU Book, 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1998;90

    Google Scholar 

  66. Curtas S, Tramposch K. Culture methods to evaluate central venous catheter sepsis. Nutr Clin Pract 1991;6:43–48

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Golledge C, McPherson MM. Skin entry site swabbing a poor predictor of catheter-related sepsis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1988;9:54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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;218:206–210

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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;175:33–40

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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;262:613–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Sitges-Serra A, Linares J. Tunnels do not protect against venous-catheter-related sepsis. Lancet 1984;1:459–460

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Prandoni P, Polistena P, Bernardi E, et al. Upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis. Risk factors, diagnosis and complications. Arch Intern Med 1997;157:57–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google 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):703a

    Google 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;21:1474

    Google Scholar 

  75. Heaton DC, Han DY, Inder A. Minidose (1 mg) warfarin as prophylaxis for central vein catheter thrombosis. Intern Med J 2002;32:84–88

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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;112:423–428

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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;113:165–171

    PubMed  CAS  Google 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;42:251–253

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Département de Chirurgie, Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont, Centre affilié à I’Université de Montréal, 5415 boul de l’Assomption, Montréal, Quebec, H1T 2M4, Canada

    Simon Turcotte MD, Serge Dubé MD, MSc & Gilles Beauchamp MD

Authors
  1. Simon Turcotte MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Serge Dubé MD, MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gilles Beauchamp MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simon Turcotte MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Turcotte, S., Dubé, S. & Beauchamp, G. Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheters Are Not Superior to Central Venous Catheters in the Acute Care of Surgical Patients on the Ward. World J. Surg. 30, 1605–1619 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-005-0174-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-005-0174-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation