Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheters Are Not Superior to Central Venous Catheters in the Acute Care of Surgical Patients on the Ward
- 21 July 2006
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in World Journal of Surgery
- Vol. 30 (8), 1605-1619
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-005-0174-y
Abstract
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.Keywords
This publication has 99 references indexed in Scilit:
- High rate of complications associated with peripherally inserted central venous catheters in patients with solid tumoursInternal Medicine Journal, 2004
- Venous Thrombosis Associated with Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: A Retrospective Analysis of the Cleveland Clinic ExperienceClinical Infectious Diseases, 2002
- The Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter: What Are the Current Indications for Its Use?Nutrition in Clinical Practice, 2002
- Complications and cost associated with parenteral nutrition delivered to hospitalized patients through either subclavian or peripherally-inserted central cathetersClinical Nutrition, 2000
- Departmental role and scope in infection conrol: Use of a template that meets joint commission requirementsAmerican Journal of Infection Control, 1996
- Complications of Long Arm‐Catheters: A Randomized Trial of Central vs Peripheral Tip LocationJournal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, 1996
- Optimal Interval for Triple-lumen Catheter ChangesMedical Decision Making, 1995
- Peripherally inserted central catheters in an acute-care hospitalArchives of Internal Medicine, 1994
- Material thrombogenicity in central venous catheterization: a comparison between soft, antebrachial catheters of silicone elastomer and polyurethaneJournal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, 1984
- A Semiquantitative Culture Method for Identifying Intravenous-Catheter-Related InfectionNew England Journal of Medicine, 1977