High rate of complications associated with peripherally inserted central venous catheters in patients with solid tumours

Complication Rates of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters in Oncologic Versus Non-Oncologic Patients

OBJECTIVES

Peripherally inserted central catheters are commonly used in cancer patients and provide vascular access for the administration of chemotherapy, antibiotics, or parenteral nutrition. Besides many advantages, they represent a source of possible complications such as catheter related blood stream infection, catheter occlusion, or thrombosis. In this study, the catheter-related complication rate between oncologic and non-oncologic patients was compared.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort-study included 411 patients who underwent their first catheter placement at the Vienna General Hospital-Medical University of Vienna from January 2013 to June 2018. Patient demographics and catheter-related parameters were collected and statistically analyzed using a competing risk model.

RESULTS

Mean catheter dwell time was 27.75 days. The overall complication rate was 7.54% (2.72 per 1000 catheter days). Underlying malignant disease (hazard ratio: 0.351, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.133-0.929, P = .035) and chemotherapy administration (hazard ratio: 2.837, 95% CI: 1.088-7.394, P = .033) were significantly associated with the occurrence of any kind of complication. Catheter related blood stream infection was observed among 11 (2.68%) patients and again significantly associated with chemotherapy administration (hazard ratio: 4.545, 95% CI: 1.178-17.539; P = .028). Thrombosis was found in 7 (1.70%) patients and occlusion in 13 (3.16%) cases.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Choice of venous access is an interdisciplinary decision with emphasis on patient participation. In oncologic patients, our data suggests that the benefits of peripherally inserted central catheters regarding costs, invasiveness, and accessibility might be outweighed by the higher rate of complications associated with the device. This becomes even more important in a community care setting, where standardized handling procedures and patient education play a pivotal role in device safety.

Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheter-Related Complications in Adult Patients with Haematological Malignancy

Background

Peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) are widely used in patients with haematological malignancies owing to the requirement for prolonged intravenous therapy. However, the growing use of PICCs has resulted in a multitude of complications such as infections and thrombosis, leading to prolonged hospitalisation periods and increased morbidity. This study aimed to determine the incidence of and factors associated with PICC-related complications in patients with haematological malignancies.

Methods

This prospective cohort study was conducted at a single academic institution. The inclusion criteria involved all adult patients with haematological malignancies who had newly inserted PICCs. The patients were observed for a minimum duration of 60 days to evaluate the incidence of PICC-related infections and thrombosis, as well as mechanical complications.

Results

A total of 119 PICCs were implanted in 85 patients. Among them, more than half of the patients were diagnosed with lymphoma (55.0%). The median dwell time was 61 days (interquartile range: 98 days). The incidence of PICC-related complications was 58.0% (6.9 per 1,000 catheter-days). Specifically, 43 PICCs (36.1%, 4.3 per 1,000 catheter-days) experienced infective complications, 25 (21.1%, 2.5 per 1,000 catheter-days) encountered mechanical complications and 1 (0.8%, 0.1 per 1,000 catheter-days) exhibited thrombotic complications. Furthermore, an underlying diagnosis of acute leukaemia was significantly associated with a higher incidence of PICC-related infections.

Conclusion

Our study revealed higher incidence rates of PICC-related complications in adult patients with haematological malignancies compared to the finding of other studies. Notably, patients with underlying acute leukaemia displayed a higher incidence of PICC-related infections. These findings underscore the importance of implementing appropriate interventions and conducting thorough root cause analyses to effectively mitigate this complication and improve patient outcomes.

Peripherally inserted central catheters versus implantable port catheters for cancer patients: a meta-analysis

Background

The implanted vascular access ports (PORTs) were compared with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) as the administration of chemotherapy regarding different clinical effects and adverse effects. Which is better is debatable. Hence, the current study was conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of these two optimal vascular access strategies.

Methods

The following electronic databases were searched: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library updated in May 2023. Studies on the differences in complication rates in patients with cancer using either PICC or PORT for chemotherapy were included. Meta-analysis Revman 5.3 software was used for statistical analysis.

Results

A total of 22 articles were retrieved. The results suggested that PORT has a superior safety profile, with lower incidences of overall adverse effects (OR=2.72, 95% CI=1.56-4.72 P=0.0004), catheter-related thrombosis (OR=2.84, 95% CI=1.97-4.11, P<0.00001), and allergic reactions (OR=6.26, 95% CI=1.86-21.09, P=0.003) than typically expected with PICC. Moreover, PICC was non-inferior to the PORT group with respect to DVT (OR=2.00, 95% CI=0.86-4.65, P=0.11) and infection (OR=1.55, 95% CI=0.75-3.22, P=0.24).

Conclusion

PORT achieved safety benefits compared with chemotherapy through PICC. Therefore, PORT is regarded as safe and effective vascular access for the administration of chemotherapy. When considering economic factors and some key elements, more high-quality research would help verify these clinical benefits.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identififier CRD42023421690.

Catheter-related thrombosis incidence and risk factors in adult cancer patients with central venous access devices

BACKGROUND

Central venous access devices (CVAD) are commonly employed in the management of cancer patients. While having several benefits they are associated with significant risks.

AIM

To review the incidence and risk factors for catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) in cancer patients with a CVAD.

METHODS

We performed a prospective observational cohort study of adult patients with cancer requiring a CVAD between 1 January 2004 and 29 June 2016. The rate of, and risk factors for the development of, symptomatic CRT were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 4920 central lines was inserted into 3130 patients. The incidence of CRT was 3.6%. CRT developed a median of 12 days following line insertion. Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) were associated with the highest rates of CRT (hazards ratio (HR) 22.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.9-170.6). Older age groups developed CRT at lower rates (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.39-0.84 for age 50-61 years, and HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.45-0.89 for age >61 years) compared to age <50 years. Increased CRT was seen in patients with prior CRT (HR 1.81; 95% CI 1.19-2.77). There was a trend to more CRT events with a Khorana tumour score of 1 compared to those with a score of 0 (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.00-1.88). Hodgkin lymphoma, germ cell and oesophagus cancers had the highest CRT rates. Side of insertion was not associated with thrombosis risk (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.57-1.05; P = 0.10).

CONCLUSIONS

Age <50 years, PICC lines and prior CRT were associated with highest CRT rate. Cancer subtype and insertion side were not predictive of thrombosis.

Safety, Efficacy, and Patient Satisfaction with Initial Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters Compared with Usual Intravenous Access in Terminally Ill Cancer Patients: A Randomized Phase II Study

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether routine insertion of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) at admission to a hospice-palliative care (HPC) unit is acceptable in terms of safety and efficacy and whether it results in superior patient satisfaction compared to usual intravenous (IV) access.

Materials and Methods

Terminally ill cancer patients were randomly assigned to two arms: routine PICC access and usual IV access arm. The primary endpoint was IV maintenance success rate, defined as the rate of functional IV maintenance until the intended time (discharge, transfer, or death).

Results

A total of 66 terminally ill cancer patients were enrolled and randomized to study arms. Among them, 57 patients (routine PICC, 29; usual IV, 28) were analyzed. In the routine PICC arm, mean time to PICC was 0.84 days (range, 0 to 3 days), 27 patients maintained PICC with function until the intended time. In the usual IV arm, 11 patients maintained peripheral IV access until the intended time, and 15 patients underwent PICC insertion. The IV maintenance success rate in the routine PICC arm (27/29, 93.1%) was similar to that in the usual IV arm (26/28, 92.8%, p=0.958). Patient satisfaction at day 5 was better in the routine PICC arm (97%, ‘a little comfort’ or ‘much comfort’) compared with the usual IV arm (21%) (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Routine PICC insertion in terminally ill cancer patients was comparable in safety and efficacy and resulted in superior satisfaction compared with usual IV access. Thus, routine PICC insertion could be considered at admission to the HPC unit.

Comparison of outcomes of central venous catheters in patients with solid and hematologic neoplasms: an Italian real-world analysis

INTRODUCTION

Although many reports have analyzed the outcomes of central venous catheters (CVCs) in oncologic and oncohematologic patients, current guidelines do not routinely recommend a specific type of CVC over the other.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated the outcomes of 178 patients with CVCs referred to an Italian specialized cancer center between January 2016 and December 2018. The analysis compares midterm peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) with long-term centrally inserted catheters, including totally implanted ports and tunneled catheters with central insertion (tCVCs).

RESULTS

A total of 130 PICCs (73%) and 48 tCVCs (27%) were analyzed. The overall complication rate was significantly increased in the PICC cohort compared to the tCVC cohort (43.1% vs 25%, respectively; p = 0.037), leading to complication-related device removal in 30.8% of PICCs vs 12.5% of tCVCs (p = 0.013). No significant differences in terms of catheter-related thromboses (p = 0.676) or catheter-related infections (p = 0.140) were detected. Nonthrombotic obstructions were significantly higher in the PICC group compared to the tCVC cohort (p = 0.006). Overall complication-free survival was significantly longer for tCVCs compared to PICCs (hazard ratio [HR], 0.262; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.128-0.536; p < 0.0001), as well as obstruction-free survival (HR, 0.082; 95% CI, 0.018-0.372; p < 0.0001). In multivariable analysis, the type of CVC was independently correlated with the occurrence of any complication (HR, 0.273; 95% CI, 0.135-0.553; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

This Italian real-world experience suggests that PICCs are associated with a higher risk of overall complications compared with tCVCs. Catheter choice in oncologic patients should be guided by treatment type and duration, risk-benefit assessment, patient preferences, and compliance.

Nursing Interventions to Reduce Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Occlusion for Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review of Literature

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients are considered the most at risk of the consequences of catheter occlusion. Therefore, nursing interventions that can effectively reduce the occlusion of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) lines must be identified to ensure a smooth treatment.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate nursing interventions to minimize PICC line occlusion and make recommended measures for preventing or decreasing occlusion and abnormal extubation.

METHODS

Studies about PICC occlusion that were published up to January 2017 were searched and screened in PubMed, Web of Science, Science Direct (Elsevier), EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Chinese databases CNKI and Wanfang. Two independent reviewers screened the literature in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria, assessed the quality of the included studies, and extracted the data. Further meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3.

RESULTS

Thirteen trials were included. Meta-analysis revealed that education for nurses (relative risk, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.51; P < .00001) was significantly associated with PICC occlusion, whereas PICC type (relative risk, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-1.15; P = .12) was not significantly associated with PICC occlusion. The solution to washing pipes and the PICC insertion techniques were descriptively analyzed to reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

This study determined the correlation of PICC occlusion with the nurses' knowledge and skills, PICC types, flushing liquid and methods, and insertion techniques.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The findings of this study can serve as a guide for clinical work and for developing targeted measures to reduce occlusion.

Prevalence and predictors of peripherally inserted central venous catheter associated bloodstream infections in cancer patients: A multicentre cohort study

Despite increasing use, the exact prevalence and predictors of peripherally inserted central catheter-associated bloodstream infection (PICC-CLABSI) in hospitalized patients with cancer are not elucidated.This retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients who underwent peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) placement in 4 institutions (during 12 months in 3 hospitals and 10 months in 1 hospital). The prevalence of PICC-CLABSI was evaluated. The association between predictors and PICC-CLABSI were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards regression models and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with log-rank tests.During the study period, 539 PICCs were inserted in 484 patients for a total of 10,841 catheter days. PICC-CLABSI occurred in 25 (5.2%) patients, with an infection rate of 2.31 per 1000 catheter days. PICC for chemotherapy (hazards ratio [HR] 11.421; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.434-53.594; P = .019), double lumen catheter [HR 5.466; 95% CI, 1.257-23.773; P = .007], and PICC for antibiotic therapy [HR 2.854; 95% CI, 1.082-7.530; P = .019] were associated with PICC-CLABSI.PICC for chemotherapy or antibiotics, and number of catheter lumens are associated with increased risk of PICC-CLABSI in cancer patients. Careful assessment of these factors might help prevent PICC-CLABSI and improve cancer patients care.

Can Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters Be Safely Placed in Patients with Cancer Receiving Chemotherapy? A Retrospective Study of Almost 400,000 Catheter-Days

BACKGROUND

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are central venous catheters (CVCs) that are commonly used in onco-hematologic settings for chemotherapy administration. As there is insufficient evidence to recommend a specific CVC for chemotherapy administration, we aimed to ascertain PICC-related adverse events (AEs) and identify independent predictors of PICC removal in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Information on adult patients with cancer with a PICC inserted for chemotherapy administration between September 2007 and December 2014 was extracted from six hospital databases. The primary outcome was PICC removal due to PICC-related AEs (occlusion, infection, or symptomatic thrombosis). Independent predictors of PICC removal were identified using a multivariate Cox regression model.

RESULTS

Among the 2,477 included patients, 419 PICC-related AEs (16.9%; 1.09 AEs per 1,000 PICC-days) were reported. AEs increased when PICC was inserted at the brachial site (hazard ratio [HR], 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.84) and with open systems (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.24-2.88) and decreased in older men (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.49-0.81).

CONCLUSION

Use of PICC for chemotherapy administration was associated with a low all-AEs rate. The basilic vein was the safer site, and valved systems had fewer AEs than open systems. More research is needed to explore the interaction between AEs, sex, and age.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

These findings provide clinicians with evidence that peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are safe for chemotherapy administration. They also suggest that clinicians should limit the use of open systems when long chemotherapy regimens are scheduled. Moreover, alternatives to PICCs should be considered when administering chemotherapy to young men.

Comparison of Complication Rates of Central Venous Catheters Versus Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheters in Pediatric Patients

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of our study is to compare the rate of central line-associated blood stream infections and venous thromboembolism in central venous catheters versus peripherally inserted central catheters in hospitalized children. There is a growing body of literature in adults describing an increased rate of venous thromboembolisms and similar rates of central line-associated blood stream infection associated with peripherally inserted central catheters versus central venous catheters. It is not known if the rate of central line-associated blood stream infection and venous thromboembolism differs between peripherally inserted central catheters and central venous catheters in children. Based on current adult literature, we hypothesize that central line-associated blood stream infection rates for peripherally inserted central catheters and central venous catheters will be similar, and the rate of venous thromboembolism will be higher for peripherally inserted central catheters versus central venous catheters.

DESIGN

This is a cohort study using retrospective review of medical records and prospectively collected hospital quality improvement databases.

SETTING

Quaternary-care pediatric hospital from October 2012 to March 2016.

PATIENTS

All patients age 1 day to 18 years old with central venous catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters placed during hospital admission over the study dates were included. Central venous catheters that were present upon hospital admission were excluded. The primary outcomes were rate of central line-associated blood stream infection and rate of venous thromboembolism.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of 2,709 catheters included in the study, 1,126 were peripherally inserted central catheters and 1,583 were central venous catheters. Peripherally inserted central catheters demonstrated a higher rate of both infection and venous thromboembolism than central venous catheters in all reported measures. In multivariable analysis, peripherally inserted central catheters had increased association with central line-associated blood stream infection (odds ratio of 3.15; 95% CI, 1.74-5.71; p = 0.0002) and increased association with venous thromboembolism (odds ratio of 2.71; 95% CI, 1.65-4.45; p < 0.0001) compared with central venous catheters.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of central line-associated blood stream infection and venous thromboembolism were higher in hospitalized pediatric patients with peripherally inserted central catheters as compared to central venous catheters. Our study confirms the need for further investigation into the safety of central access devices to assist in proper catheter selection.

When are Oral Antibiotics a Safe and Effective Choice for Bacterial Bloodstream Infections? An Evidence-Based Narrative Review

Bacterial bloodstream infections (BSIs) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Traditionally, BSIs have been managed with intravenous antimicrobials. However, whether intravenous antimicrobials are necessary for the entirety of the treatment course in BSIs, especially for uncomplicated episodes, is a more controversial matter. Patients that are clinically stable, without signs of shock, or have been stabilized after an initial septic presentation, may be appropriate candidates for treatment of BSIs with oral antimicrobials. There are risks and costs associated with extended courses of intravenous agents, such as the necessity for long-term intravenous catheters, which entail risks for procedural complications, secondary infections, and thrombosis. Oral antimicrobial therapy for bacterial BSIs offers several potential benefits. When selected appropriately, oral antibiotics offer lower cost, fewer side effects, promote antimicrobial stewardship, and are easier for patients. The decision to use oral versus intravenous antibiotics must consider the characteristics of the pathogen, the patient, and the drug. In this narrative review, the authors highlight areas where oral therapy is a safe and effective choice to treat bloodstream infection, and offer guidance and cautions to clinicians managing patients experiencing BSI.

A Study of Use of "PORT" Catheter in Patients with Cancer: A Single-Center Experience

Background:

Effective and reliable venous access is one of the cornerstones of modern medical therapy in oncology.

Materials and methods:

This is a prospective observational study, which collected data of patients who require “PORT” catheter insertion for any cancer, at a tertiary care oncology hospital in Ahmadabad, Gujarat, India, during a 2-year period.

Aims and objectives:

The main objective of this study was to study the various complications and outcomes related to “PORT” catheters.

Results:

“PORT” catheter was inserted in 100 patients and was most commonly used in solid malignancies (n = 86, 86%), followed by hematologic malignancies (n = 14, 14%). Among the solid malignancies, breast cancer (38, 38%) was the most common underlying disease, whereas among the hematologic malignancies, acute lymphoblastic leukemia (6, 6%) was the most common underlying disease for “PORT” catheter insertion. Chemotherapy was started on the first day of “PORT” catheter in 74% of patients in the “PORT” study group. The various complications developed in the “PORT” study group in the descending order are as follows: 4 patients (4%) developed early infection (⩽30 days after “PORT” placement), 4 (4%) late infection (⩾30 days after “PORT” placement), 4 (4%) bloodstream infection, 2 (2%) local skin infection at the “PORT” insertion site, 2 (2%) dislodgment of the “PORT” catheter, 2 (2%) fracture of the “PORT” catheter, and 1 recurrent pleural effusion. One patient (1%) developed thrombosis as the complication of “PORT” catheter insertion.

Conclusions:

The most disturbing aspect of treatment for a patient with cancer is multiple painful venipunctures made for administration of cytotoxic agents, antibiotics, blood products, and nutritional supplements. The focus of this prospective observational research is to study the various underlying diseases for which “PORT” catheter is needed in different solid and hematologic malignancies and the various complications and outcomes in pediatric and adult patients with cancer.

Complications with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) used in hospitalized patients and outpatients: a prospective cohort study

Background

Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters (PICCs) are widely used for hospitalized patients and among outpatients. Despite many advantages, PICC-related complications can occur such as infection, thrombosis or mechanical complications.

We aimed to evaluate rates and nature of PICC-related complications from insertion to removal and analyze risk factors of complications at baseline and during healthcare.

Methods

We performed a prospective cohort study looking at PICC-related complication rates in the inpatient and outpatient settings of 163 patients over a 7-month period. Pertinent patient demographics as well as catheter-related factors were collected. The data were analyzed to identify catheter-related complications using univariate and multivariate analysis.

Results

One hundred ninety-two PICCs were monitored for a total of 5218 PICC-days (3337 PICC-days for inpatients, 1881 PICC-days for outpatients). The overall complication rate was 30.2% (11.1 per 1000 PICC-days) with a mean time to onset of 16.1 days. Complications included occlusion (8.9%), accidental withdrawal (8.9%), infections (6.3%) including 9 local infections (4.7%) and 3 bloodstream infections (1.6%), venous thrombosis (1.6%) and hematoma (1%). Complication rate was higher in the hospitalization setting (36.1%; 14.38 per 1000 PICC-days) than in the outpatient setting (19.4%; 3.19 per 1000 PICC-days). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the occurrence of occlusion was significantly associated with an age > 65 years (OR = 4.19; 95% CI [1.1–15.81]) and the presence of a pre-occlusive event the week before PICC removal (OR = 76.35; 95% CI [9.36–622.97]).

Conclusions

PICCs appear safe in the inpatient and outpatient settings with low rates of infectious or thrombotic complications. Occlusion and accidental withdrawal were the most common complications, with age > 65 and catheter pre-occlusive event associated with an increased likelihood of catheter occlusion.

A novel infection prevention approach: Leveraging a mandatory electronic communication tool to decrease peripherally inserted central catheter infections, complications, and cost

BACKGROUND

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) removed prematurely for unconfirmed infection or thrombosis lead to subsequent reinsertions and associated complications. To improve clinical quality, a mandatory electronic communication tool (MECT) based on clinical practice guidelines was mandated for all inpatient adult PICCs in an academically affiliated tertiary medical center. This MECT facilitated early communication and specialized evaluation with the PICC team for any complications related to PICCs.

METHODS

A historical cohort study was conducted. Quality and cost measurements for 200 PICCs postinstitution of a MECT were compared with 200 PICCs 12 months prior. PICC removal and complication rates were compared for the 2 cohorts.

RESULTS

Significant outcomes included a central-line associated blood stream infection rate that changed from 1.38/1,000 catheter days to 0/1,000 catheter days, 0 provider-led premature PICC removals, an overall 84% decrease in premature PICC removals (from 16%-2.5%; P < .0001), a decrease in the total complication rate from 45.5%-24% (P < .0001), and 25% reduction in radiology costs.

CONCLUSION

A novel infection prevention approach leveraging a MECT resulted in 0 central line-associated bloodstream infections and provider-led premature PICC removals.

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) in cancer patients under chemotherapy: A prospective study on the incidence of complications and overall failures

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The increasing use of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) for chemotherapy has led to the observation of an elevated risk of complications and failures. This study investigates PICC failures in cancer patients.

METHODS

A prospective study was conducted at a single cancer institution on 291 PICC placement for chemotherapy. The primary study outcome was PICC failure.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 119 days. PICC complications occurred in 72 patients (24.7%) and failures with removal in 44 (15.1%). Reasons for failures were upper extremity deep venous thrombosis (UEDVT) 12 (4.1%), central line associate bloodstream infection (CLABSI) 5 (1.7%) with an infection rate of 0.95 per 1,000 catheter days, exit site infection 9 (3.1%) with a rate of 1.46 per 1,000 catheter days, catheter dislodgment 11 (3.8%), and occlusion 7 (2.4%). Statistically significant risk factors were previous DVT (HR 2.95, 95%CI 1.33-6.53), reason for PICC implant (HR 3.65, 95%CI 1.12-10.34) and 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin and bevacizumab based chemotherapy (HR 3.11, 95%CI 1.17-8.26).

CONCLUSIONS

PICC is a safe venous device for chemotherapy delivery. Nevertheless, a 15% rate of failure has to be taken in account when planning PICC insertion for chemotherapy purposes. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:708-714. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Impact of a Surgeon-Led Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheter Team on Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheter-Related Complications and Costs

BACKGROUND

Peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) are popular for a broad range of indications. As with other forms of central access, PICC use can be associated with serious and potentially costly complications. In 2000, in response to the rising popularity of PICC use, a surgeon-led team was created to steward their placement. All requests were screened rigorously to ensure rational use. Our hypothesis was that creation of a dedicated PICC team would decrease inappropriate PICC placement, overall complication rates, and cost.

METHODS

The study was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data captured in the PICC team-maintained database between 2000 and 2013. The database was reviewed for PICC indications, reasons PICC requests were denied, and septic or thrombotic complications after PICC placement. To estimate cost savings, PICC supplies and each occurrence of blood stream infection (BSI) and thrombotic complication was assigned a cost on the basis of the available literature.

RESULTS

Between 2000 and 2013, 35,651 PICC placements were requested, of which 24,638 (69.1%) were approved, 22,157 (62.1%) immediately and 2,481 (6.9%) after initial refusal in view of further review of the indications. Most (95%) of the PICCs inserted were placed at the bedside within 1 d of approval. Blood stream infections occurred in 5.9% of patients and thrombosis in 2.7%. The attributable costs saved by declining placement of unnecessary PICCs, assuming the same proportions of patients would have developed a complication, could be as high as $5.4 million (M) in supplies, $7.77 M in avoided BSI and $2.25 M in avoided thrombotic complications, for a total savings of $15.44 M.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of a surgeon-led PICC team had a significant impact on the placement rate, reducing cost by supplies foregone and complications avoided. Cost savings related to PICC placement alone should be considered as the definite cost savings because of the judicious allocation of resources.

Central line-associated bloodstream infections in non-ICU inpatient wards: a 2-year analysis

OBJECTIVE

Little is known about patient-specific factors contributing to central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) outside of the intensive care unit (ICU). We sought to describe these factors and hypothesized that dialysis patients would comprise a significant proportion of this cohort.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study from January 2010 to December 2011.

SETTING

An 880-bed tertiary teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

Patients with CLABSI in non-ICU wards.

METHODS

CLABSI patients were identified from existing infection-control databases and primary chart review was conducted. National Health and Safety Network (NHSN) definitions were utilized for CLABSI and pathogen classification. CLABSI rates were calculated per patient day. Total mortality rates were inclusive of hospice patients.

RESULTS

Over a 2-year period, 104 patients incurred 113 CLABSIs for an infection rate of 0.35 per 1,000 patient days. The mean length of hospital stay prior to CLABSI was 16±13.3 days, which was nearly 3 times that of hospital-wide non-ICU length of stay. Only 11 patients (10.6%) received dialysis within 48 hours of CLABSI. However, 67% of patients had a hematologic malignancy, and 91.8% of those admitted with a malignant hematologic diagnosis were neutropenic at the time of CLABSI. Enterococcus spp. was the most common organism recovered, and half of all central venous catheters (CVCs) present were peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC lines). Mortality rates were 18.3% overall and 27.3% among dialysis patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with CLABSIs outside of the ICU, only 10.6% received dialysis prior to infection. However, underlying hematologic malignancy, neutropenia, and PICC lines were highly prevalent in this population.

The Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC): Results From a Multispecialty Panel Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method

Use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) has grown substantially in recent years. Increasing use has led to the realization that PICCs are associated with important complications, including thrombosis and infection. Moreover, some PICCs may not be placed for clinically valid reasons. Defining appropriate indications for insertion, maintenance, and care of PICCs is thus important for patient safety. An international panel was convened that applied the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to develop criteria for use of PICCs. After systematic reviews of the literature, scenarios related to PICC use, care, and maintenance were developed according to patient population (for example, general hospitalized, critically ill, cancer, kidney disease), indication for insertion (infusion of peripherally compatible infusates vs. vesicants), and duration of use (≤5 days, 6 to 14 days, 15 to 30 days, or ≥31 days). Within each scenario, appropriateness of PICC use was compared with that of other venous access devices. After review of 665 scenarios, 253 (38%) were rated as appropriate, 124 (19%) as neutral/uncertain, and 288 (43%) as inappropriate. For peripherally compatible infusions, PICC use was rated as inappropriate when the proposed duration of use was 5 or fewer days. Midline catheters and ultrasonography-guided peripheral intravenous catheters were preferred to PICCs for use between 6 and 14 days. In critically ill patients, nontunneled central venous catheters were preferred over PICCs when 14 or fewer days of use were likely. In patients with cancer, PICCs were rated as appropriate for irritant or vesicant infusion, regardless of duration. The panel of experts used a validated method to develop appropriate indications for PICC use across patient populations. These criteria can be used to improve care, inform quality improvement efforts, and advance the safety of medical patients.

Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter-Related Infections in a Cohort of Hospitalized Adult Patients

PURPOSE

To determine the incidence and the risks factors of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-related infectious complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medical charts of every in-patient that underwent a PICC insertion in our hospital between January 2010 and October 2013 were reviewed. All PICC-related infections were recorded and categorized as catheter-related bloodstream infections (CR-BSI), exit-site infections, and septic thrombophlebitis.

RESULTS

Nine hundred and twenty-three PICCs were placed in 644 unique patients, mostly male (68.3%) with a median age of 58 years. 31 (3.4%) PICC-related infections occurred during the study period corresponding to an infection rate of 1.64 per 1000 catheter-days. We observed 27 (87.1%) CR-BSI, corresponding to a rate of 1.43 per 1000 catheter-days, 3 (9.7%) septic thrombophlebitis, and 1 (3.2%) exit-site infection. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed a higher PICC-related infection rate with chemotherapy (odds ratio (OR) 7.2-confidence interval (CI) 95% [1.77-29.5]), auto/allograft (OR 5.9-CI 95% [1.2-29.2]), and anti-coagulant therapy (OR 2.2-95% [1.4-12]).

CONCLUSION

Chemotherapy, auto/allograft, and anti-coagulant therapy are associated with an increased risk of developing PICC-related infections.

CLINICAL ADVANCE

Chemotherapy, auto/allograft, and anti-coagulant therapy are important predictors of PICC-associated infections. A careful assessment of these risk factors may be important for future success in preventing PICC-related infections.

Retrospective cohort analysis comparing the incidence of deep vein thromboses between peripherally-inserted and long-term skin tunneled venous catheters in hemato-oncology patients

Background

The introduction of central venous catheters has advanced medical care, particularly in hemato-oncology. However these can be associated with an increased thrombotic risk. Previous studies have compared the rate of thrombotic events between peripherally- inserted (PICCs) and long term skin tunneled catheters (LTSTCs) noting fewer complications associated with the latter, though this has rarely translated into clinical practice. The objectives of our study was to compare the cumulative incidence of thrombotic events between peripherally-inserted and long term skin tunneled venous catheters.

Patients/methods

We performed a retrospective, single center cohort analysis of patients with hematological malignancies who had either a PICC or LTSTC line inserted between January 2010 through January 2013. Cumulative incidences of thrombotic events were compared between the two groups, and post-thrombotic complications were also examined.

Results

346 patients had a PICC inserted with cumulative incidence of symptomatic thrombosis of 5.8%, while 237 patients had a LTSTC inserted with a cumulative incidence of 1.7% (p = 0.003). Post-thrombotic complication rates, particularly infection, were higher in the PICC group compared to the LTSTC group (p = 0.597).

Conclusions

Our study showed that the incidence of thrombotic events in hemato-oncology patients was significantly lower in those who had a LTSTC compared to PICC line. As the use of central venous lines increases in hemato-oncology patient care, a randomized trial comparing PICCs and LTSTCs is necessary to address which venous access is most appropriate in this cohort of patients, with minimal risk of morbidity and mortality.

A comparison of silicone and polyurethane PICC lines and postinsertion complication rates: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To determine postinsertion complication rate for peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), in particular the difference between silicone and polyurethane lines in general population groups as well as oncology and non-oncology patient groups.

METHODS

A systematic review of prospective and retrospective studies in the English language between January 2000 and October 2013 focusing on postinsertion complication rates for PICCs in the adult population. Joanna Briggs Institute tools were used to extract data from the final 19 articles with information collated relating to catheter type, patient type, overall complication rate, rates of infection, occlusion, dislodgment, phlebitis, thrombus and rupture.

RESULTS

Overall, the PICCs complication rates ranged from 8 to 50%. Although both lines saw similar overall rates upon closer observation, the strengths and weaknesses of both lines are shown.Polyurethane PICC lines were found to provide lower rates of infection, dislodgment, thrombus and rupture complications.Mixed results were found with catheter line occlusions, overall averages showing polyurethane lines slightly higher rates than silicone. Oncology patients however saw opposite results.Phlebitis rates saw the largest division among the postinsertion complication rates, with 6.7% more phlebitis in the general patient group and 14.5% in the oncology group more for those with polyurethane PICC lines compared with the silicone.

CONCLUSIONS

Both silicone and polyurethane PICC lines exhibit nearly identical overall average postinsertion compilation rates; however, it is the type of complications experienced that differ. Overall, oncology patients can expect to experience higher levels of postinsertion complications.

Percutaneous retrieval of PICC fractures via the femoral vein in six cancer patients

PURPOSE

To investigate the feasibility and safety of the interventional technique of retrieving the fractured peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) segments within the vessels via the femoral vein.

METHODS

From July 2007 to January 2012, we performed percutaneous retrieval of PICC fractures in six cancer patients who accepted chemotherapy via PICC. The fractures occurred during the traction of the catheter and were diagnosed with chest plain film radiography and/or computed tomography. The patients included four cases of ovarian cancer, one case of breast cancer and one case of cervical cancer. The fractures were retained in the vessels of the patients for 1 to 10 days. According to the location of the ends of the PICC fractures, three methods were employed using the most commonly used interventional devices in the digital subtraction angiography suite.

RESULTS

The PICC fractures were located in the subclavian vein, superior vena cava, right atrium, right ventricle or pulmonary arteries. During the procedures, a goose neck snare, pigtail catheter and stone basket catheter were used individually or in combination. The PICC fractures were removed successfully in all six patients via unilateral or bilateral femoral vein access. No major complications occurred during the operation or the follow-up period of 7 to 10 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Via femoral vein access, PICC fractures could be removed with common interventional instruments such as a goose snare, basket catheter and pigtail catheter. The interventional retrieval is a safe, convenient and minimally invasive method for the removal of PICC fractures.

A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of three different types of Valved and Non-Valved Peripherally inserted Central Catheters

Purpose

Few randomized studies have investigated the impact of valved and non-valved power-injectable peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) in terms of incidence of occlusion, infection, malfunction and venous thrombosis.

Methods

We have prospectively compared three types of third-generation polyurethane PICCs. One hundred and eighty adult patients candidate to chemotherapy were randomized into three groups: power-injectable PICCs with Solo-2 proximal valve (Bard); power-injectable PICCs with PASV (Pressure Activated Safety Valve) proximal valve (Navilyst); and non-valved power-injectable PICCs (Medcomp). All PICCs were single lumen 4Fr, inserted according to a well-defined protocol - maximal barrier precautions, ultrasound guidance, intracavitary electrocardiography (IC-ECG), and so on - and managed according to the recommendations of the most recent guidelines (antisepsis with 2% chlorhexidine, transparent dressing, sutureless device, strict ‘scrub the hub’ policy, neutral displacement needle-free connectors and so on). All catheters were flushed with 10 ml saline before and after each infusion, or with 20 ml saline after blood sampling or infusion of blood products. No heparin was used.

Results

We detected no complications at insertion; no PICC-related bloodstream infections; no dislocations; five cases of transient occlusion and two cases of persistent withdrawal occlusion, evenly distributed among the groups; one episode of complete irreversible obstruction (group A); four episodes of asymptomatic peripheral venous thrombosis; one episode of symptomatic, severe central vein thrombosis (group B). In 31% of PICCs in group A (19/61) and in 65% of group B (39/60), difficulties with gravity infusion were reported; three PICCs of group A were complicated by rupture of the intravascular tract during pump infusion. Five PICCs were removed because of complications, four in group A (one obstruction; three ruptures) and one in group B (central venous thrombosis).

Conclusion

We found no clinical advantages of valved vs. non-valved PICCs.

Peripherally inserted central catheters in non-hospitalized cancer patients: 5-year results of a prospective study

Purpose

Few prospective follow-up studies evaluating the use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) to deliver chemotherapy and/or home parenteral nutrition (HPN) have focused exclusively on oncology outpatients. The aim of this prospective study was to assess the reliability and the safety of PICCs over a 5-year use in non-hospitalized cancer patients requiring long-term intravenous therapies.

Methods

Since June 2008, all adult oncology outpatient candidates for PICC insertion were consecutively enrolled and the incidence of catheter-related complications was investigated. The follow-up continued until the PICC removal.

Results

Two hundred sixty-nine PICCs in 250 patients (98 % with solid malignancies) were studied, for a total of 55,293 catheter days (median dwell time 184 days, range 15–1,384). All patients received HPN and 71 % received chemotherapy during the study period. The incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) was low (0.05 per 1,000 catheter days), PICC-related symptomatic thrombosis was rare (1.1 %; 0.05 per 1,000 catheter days), and mechanical complications were uncommon (13.1 %; 0.63 per 1,000 catheter days). The overall complication rate was 17.5 % (0.85 per 1,000 catheter days) and PICCs were removed because of complications only in 7 % of cases. The main findings of this study were that, if accurately managed, PICCs can be safely used in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy and/or HPN, recording a low incidence of CRBSI, thrombosis, and mechanical complications; a long catheter life span; and a low probability of catheter removal because of complications.

Conclusions

Our study suggests that PICCs can be successfully utilized as safe and long-lasting venous access devices in non-hospitalized cancer patients.

Upper extremity venous thrombosis in patients with cancer with peripherally inserted central venous catheters: a retrospective analysis of risk factors

PURPOSE

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are often used in place of mediport catheters because of cost and lack of operating room time and to prevent delays in therapy. One common complication associated with their use is upper extremity venous thrombosis (UEVT). The purpose of this study was to ascertain risk factors associated with an increased risk of PICC-associated UEVT in patients with cancer.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis identified 237 patients with cancer who received PICCs at the Dallas Veterans Affairs Medical Center from 2006 to 2009. We analyzed many risk factors, including PICC infection (PI), use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), antiplatelet agents (APAs), treatment dose anticoagulation (TDA), and bevacizumab.

RESULTS

Of 237 patients, 36 (15%) were found to have UEVT. Stepwise logistic regression analysis showed risk factors positively associated with UEVT were use of ESAs (odds ratio [OR], 10.66; 95% CI, 2.25 to 50.49), hospitalization (OR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.05 to 5.39), PI (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.03 to 5.86), and TDA (OR, 8.34; 95% CI, 2.98 to 23.33), whereas patients receiving APAs had a lower risk of UEVT (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.92).

CONCLUSION

Specific factors significantly increase the risk of UEVT in patients with cancer with PICCs, whereas use of APAs seems to have a protective effect against UEVT. These results may aid in the development of a predictive model for identifying patients at high risk of UEVT who may benefit from APAs, as well as in determining preventive strategies for reducing the risk of PICC-associated UEVT.

Peripherally inserted central catheters: use at a tertiary care pediatric center

PURPOSE

To examine the use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) in a tertiary care pediatric setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An observational study of use and referral practices for PICCs in a tertiary care pediatric setting was performed with three distinct approaches: (i) in an institutional overview of trends, data from 2001 to 2012 were initially analyzed to identify high-level trends; (ii) an in-depth analysis of PICC referrals during 1 year was performed to determine details of referral patterns and clinical practices; and (iii) an electronic survey of the perception and understanding of referring clinical staff was conducted.

RESULTS

During the past decade, there has been a steady increase in the number of PICC insertions and a decrease in median PICC dwell times. Discrepancies were identified between the anticipated versus actual dwell times. A large proportion of patients was found to have multiple PICC insertions, short dwell times, and premature PICC removals, potentially resulting in increasing risks of short- and long-term complications. Large percentages of the staff respondents valued the role of PICCs and had a good understanding of short-term complications, but underestimated the scale of the PICC service (numbers placed, resources involved) and several long-term complications associated with PICCs.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of PICCs inserted in children is increasing while PICC dwell times are decreasing. Better postprocedure care is important to minimize premature removals and avoid repeat insertions. Associated complications are not fully appreciated by the referring pediatricians. Further education and guidelines are needed.

Peripherally inserted central catheter placement in cancer patients with profound thrombocytopaenia: a prospective analysis

OBJECTIVE

No studies have specifically evaluated the safety of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) placement in patients with profound thrombocytopaenia. We prospectively determined the frequency of haemorrhagic complications of PICC placement in cancer patients with uncorrected profound thrombocytopaenia.

METHODS

Profound thrombocytopaenia was defined as a platelet count <50 × 10(9)/l. No patients received transfusions before or after the procedure. Three types of adverse effects were analysed: minor oozing, mild haematoma and major haemorrhage.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-three PICC implantations in 101 cancer patients were prospectively included in the study: seven patients (7 %) had a solid tumour and 94 (93 %) a haematological malignancy. Among these 143 procedures in thrombocytopaenic patients, 93 (65 %) were performed with a platelet count 20-50 × 10(9)/l and 50 (35 %) had lower than 20 × 10(9)/l. No major haemorrhage was observed. Minor oozing was observed in six implantations (4 %) and mild haematoma in two (1.5 %), for a total of eight minor haemorrhagic adverse events (5.5 %). In patients with a platelet count <20 × 10(9)/l, 1/50 (2 %) had minor oozing and none had minor haematoma.

CONCLUSIONS

In cancer patients with uncorrected profound thrombocytopaenia, the incidence of adverse events after PICC implantation was low, and was limited to minor haemorrhagic adverse events.

KEY POINTS

• PICC placement has high technical success in profound thrombocytopaenic cancer patients. • Few adverse events are encountered after PICC placement, limited to minor haemorrhage. • PICC placement does not routinely require platelet transfusion in patients with thrombocytopaenia. • Such PICC placement still seems safe when the platelet count is <20 × 10 (9) /l.

Bard PowerPICC Solo2 vs Cook Turbo-Ject: A Tale of Two PICCs

Purpose

To compare the complications experienced for 2 different brands of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC), Cook Turbo-Ject and the Bard PowerPICC Solo2. The rationale for this project revolved around concern that one of the PICCS in question had high rates of complications.

Methods

A prospective clinical trial was conducted after obtaining approval from the University of Saskatchewan Human Research Ethics Committee. All PICCs were implanted at the Royal University Hospital Medical Imaging Department by an interventional radiologist. Patient randomization was achieved by alternating the brand of PICC implanted in sequential patients. All the subjects were inpatients from a single surgical ward. Patients were excluded from the study if they had a known uncorrected coagulopathy, or if they were being treated for venous thrombosis. This project was financially supported by the Summer Student Research Fund, College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan.

Results

A total of 53 PICCs (25 Bard and 28 Cook) were inserted over the study period. The mean PICC dwell time was 23.3 days for both the Bard and Cook PICCs, respectively. No statistically significant differences were detected in study group demographics, technical placement of the PICCs, or in the complications encountered.

Discussion

Both the Cook Turbo-Ject and the Bard PowerPicc Solo2 PICCs provided acceptable venous access for a wide variety of clinical indications.

Risk Factors for Upper Extremity Venous Thrombosis Associated with Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheters

Purpose

To identify clinically important risk factors associated with upper extremity venous thrombosis following peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC).

Methods

A retrospective case control study of 400 consecutive patients with and without upper extremity venous thrombosis post-PICC insertion was performed. Patient data included demographics, body mass index (BMI), ethnicity, site of insertion, size and lumen of catheter, internal length, infusate, and co-morbidities, such as diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, and renal failure. Additional risk factors analyzed were active cancer, any history of cancer, recent trauma, smoking, a history of prior deep vein thrombosis, and recent surgery, defined as surgery within three months prior to PICC insertion.

Results

The prevalence of trauma, renal failure, and infusion with antibiotics and total parenteral nutrition (TPN) was higher among patients exhibiting upper extremity venous thrombosis (UEVT), when compared to controls. Patients developing UEVT were also more likely to have PICC line placement in a basilic vein and less likely to have brachial vein placement (P<.001). Left-sided PICC line sites also posed a greater risk (P=.026). The rate of standard DVT prophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin and unfractionated heparin and the use of warfarin was similar in both groups. Average length of hospital stay was almost double among patients developing UEVT, 19.5 days, when compared to patients undergoing PICC line insertion without thrombosis, 10.8 days (t=6.98, P<.001).

Conclusions

In multivariate analysis, trauma, renal failure, left-sided catheters, basilic placement, TPN, and infusion with antibiotics, specifically vancomycin, were significant risk factors for UEVT associated with PICC insertion. Prophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin, unfractionated heparin or use of warfarin did not prevent the development of venous thrombosis in patients with PICCs. Length of hospital stay and cost are markedly increased in patients who develop PICC-associated upper extremity venous thrombosis.

Prophylactic antibiotic guidelines in modern interventional radiology practice

Modern interventional radiology practice is continuously evolving. Developments include increases in the number of central venous catheter placements and tumor treatments (uterine fibroid therapy, radio- and chemoembolization of liver tumor, percutaneous radiofrequency and cryoablation), and new procedures such as abdominal aortic aneurysm stent-graft repair, vertebroplasty, kyphoplasty, and varicose vein therapies. There have also been recent advancements in standard biliary and urinary drainage procedures, percutaneous gastrointestinal feeding tube placement, and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts. Prophylactic antibiotics have become the standard of care in many departments, with little clinical data to support its wide acceptance. The rise in antibiotic-resistant strains of organisms in all hospitals worldwide have forced every department to question the use of prophylactic antibiotics. The authors review the evidence behind use of prophylactic antibiotics in standard interventional radiology procedures, as well as in newer procedures that have only recently been incorporated into interventional radiology practice.

Bloodstream infection, venous thrombosis, and peripherally inserted central catheters: reappraising the evidence

The widespread use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) has transformed the care of medical and surgical patients. Whereas intravenous antibiotics, parenteral nutrition, and administration of chemotherapy once necessitated prolonged hospitalization, PICCs have eliminated the need for such practice. However, PICCs may not be as innocuous as once thought; a growing body of evidence suggests that these devices also have important risks. This review discusses the origin of PICCs and highlights reasons behind their rapid adoption in medical practice. We evaluate the evidence behind 2 important PICC-related complications--venous thrombosis and bloodstream infections--and describe how initial studies may have led to a false sense of security with respect to these outcomes. In this context, we introduce a conceptual model to understand the risk of PICC-related complications and guide the use of these devices. Through this model, we outline recommendations that clinicians may use to prevent PICC-related adverse events. We conclude by highlighting important knowledge gaps and identifying avenues for future research in this area.

Increased complexity and complications associated with multiple peripherally inserted central catheter insertions in children: the tip of the iceberg

PURPOSE

To assess the effects of repeated placements of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) on the venous system in children.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Children who underwent successful first-time PICC placements between 2005 and 2007 were retrospectively evaluated. Patient demographics, procedural data, and complications were obtained from hospital databases. Data from subsequent PICC insertions were compared with those from previous PICC insertions. A generalized estimating equation was used with appropriate statistical tests for data analysis.

RESULTS

PICCs were grouped into four groups: first PICCs (n = 1,274), second PICCs (n = 167), third PICCs (n = 52), and fourth to seventh PICCs (n = 32). Successive PICCs were associated with progressively increased difficulty of access compared with earlier PICCs, as demonstrated by significant increases in procedural duration (P = .01) and fluoroscopy time (P = .005). Increased complexity was also evident through significant increases in the percentages of cases that required venography/digital subtraction angiography (P <.0001), multiple attempts to gain venous access (P <.0001), and a switch to another limb for venous access (P <.0001) between subsequent and first PICCs. In addition, rates of procedural complications also increased for subsequent PICCs compared with first PICCs (P <.0001). Furthermore use of the most preferred vein for vascular access significantly decreased in subsequent versus first PICC insertions (P <.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Increased procedural complexity and complications were found with successive PICC insertions. These results confirm the need for a prospective study to directly assess the long-term effects of PICCs on venous patency.

Peripherally inserted central catheter bloodstream infection surveillance rates in an acute care setting in Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) are alternatives to short-term central venous catheters and provide intravenous access in the acute hospital setting. In this study, we describe the rate of PICC-associated bloodstream infections (BSI).

DESIGN AND SETTING

Prospective cohort study using data on PICC lines reviewed from January to December 2009.

METHODS

The infection control team was responsible for prospective BSI case findings. The infection rate was calculated per 1000 device-days.

RESULTS

During the study period, 92 PICC lines were inserted with a total of 3336 device-days of prospective surveillance. The most frequent reasons for the insertion of the PICC lines were chemotherapy (n=19, 20.7%), intravenous antimicrobial therapy (n=34, 37%), and for patients in the medical intensive care unit (ICU) (n=16, 17.4%). The overall BSI rate was 4.5/1000 PICC days. The PICC line-associated BSI rates for a specific indication were as follows: chemotherapy 6.6/1000 device-days, intravenous antimicrobial therapy 1.2/1000 device-days, medical ICU 7.3/1000 device-days, surgical ICU 4.6/1000 device-days, and total parental nutrition patients 2.4/1000 device-days (P<.001). The rates were not adjusted for patient severity of illness.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that underlying conditions and indications for the PICC line use may play an important role in the development of BSI.

Prevention of VTE in nonsurgical patients: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines

BACKGROUND

This guideline addressed VTE prevention in hospitalized medical patients, outpatients with cancer, the chronically immobilized, long-distance travelers, and those with asymptomatic thrombophilia.

METHODS

This guideline follows methods described in Methodology for the Development of Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis Guidelines: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines in this supplement.

RESULTS

For acutely ill hospitalized medical patients at increased risk of thrombosis, we recommend anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), low-dose unfractionated heparin (LDUH) bid, LDUH tid, or fondaparinux (Grade 1B) and suggest against extending the duration of thromboprophylaxis beyond the period of patient immobilization or acute hospital stay (Grade 2B). For acutely ill hospitalized medical patients at low risk of thrombosis, we recommend against the use of pharmacologic prophylaxis or mechanical prophylaxis (Grade 1B). For acutely ill hospitalized medical patients at increased risk of thrombosis who are bleeding or are at high risk for major bleeding, we suggest mechanical thromboprophylaxis with graduated compression stockings (GCS) (Grade 2C) or intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) (Grade 2C). For critically ill patients, we suggest using LMWH or LDUH thromboprophylaxis (Grade 2C). For critically ill patients who are bleeding or are at high risk for major bleeding, we suggest mechanical thromboprophylaxis with GCS and/or IPC at least until the bleeding risk decreases (Grade 2C). In outpatients with cancer who have no additional risk factors for VTE we suggest against routine prophylaxis with LMWH or LDUH (Grade 2B) and recommend against the prophylactic use of vitamin K antagonists (Grade 1B).

CONCLUSIONS

Decisions regarding prophylaxis in nonsurgical patients should be made after consideration of risk factors for both thrombosis and bleeding, clinical context, and patients' values and preferences.

Between Scylla and Charybdis: antithrombotic therapy in hematopoietic progenitor cell transplant patients

Patients who undergo hematopoietic progenitor cell transplant may require antithrombotic therapy for a variety of reasons--history of vascular events or developing new ones during therapy. For patients with arterial disease, use of antiplatelet therapy is based on acuity. For primary prevention of an arterial event, aspirin can be withheld at the start of transplant. On the other hand, in the face of a patient experiencing an acute myocardial infarction, aspirin should be given, no matter what the degree of thrombocytopenia is. Patients with cardiac 'hardware'-stents and mechanical valves-pose difficult issues because as higher risk patients (especially patients with recent implantation of a drug eluting stent) they require more aggressive anticoagulation, even in the face of severe thrombocytopenia. Anticoagulation with heparin is dependent on the platelet count with full dose recommended for a platelet count over 50 × 10(9)/L and prophylactic dosing with platelets in the 20-50 × 10(9)/L range. If the patient develops a distal venous thrombosis, then simple observation can be used, but more proximal thrombosis or pulmonary embolism requires consideration of anticoagulation. Central venous catheter thrombosis is best treated by line removal, as the risk of bleeding is high if the device is left in. The advent of new anticoagulants with minimal drug and food interactions may offer better choices for therapy for these difficult patients. This is also an area in which clinical trials would be helpful to clarify the treatment choices.

PICC-Related Thrombosis: Pathophysiology, Incidence, Morbidity and the Effect of Ultrasound-Guided Placement Technique on Occurrence in Cancer Patients

Aim: To examine the phenomenon of catheter-related thrombosis by describing the pathophysiology of thrombosis and reviewing the evidence relating to the incidence, morbidity and the use of ultrasound-guided placement on the reduction in occurrence.

Background: The use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) as a means to deliver essential therapy for patients is common practice within the field of Oncology. The functional capacity of these devices has to be balanced with the potential for the development of complications such as thrombosis which may lead to debilitating physical or psychological effects.

Methods: Papers of all methodological design were included in the English language from 1980–2009. A review of the literature included papers associated with; the incidence of PICC-related upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT), the morbidity and mortality associated with central venous catheter-related UEDVT and the use of ultrasound guidance to place PICCs.

Results: The literature demonstrates that catheter-related thrombosis is not an uncommon event especially when cancer patients are under investigation. The evidence relating to the use of ultrasound-guided placement as a means to reduce the incidence of thrombosis specifically in PICCs is small in respect to the number of papers but demonstrates a clear reduction in occurrence.

Conclusion: The development of co-morbidities of thrombosis such as pulmonary embolus or post-thrombotic syndrome exacerbates the disease process and is demonstrated to result in the deterioration of health and untimely death. The use of ultrasound devices to place PICCs needs to be considered in the clinical environment based on early indication from the literature that placement in the upper arm leads to a reduction in the incidence of catheter-related thrombosis.

Peripherally inserted central venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections in hospitalized adult patients

BACKGROUND

Limited data on the risk of peripherally inserted central venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections (PICC BSIs) in hospitalized patients are available. In 2007, dedicated intravenous therapy nurses were no longer available to place difficult peripheral intravenous catheters or provide PICC care Barnes-Jewish Hospital.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the hospital-wide incidence of PICC BSIs and to assess the effect of discontinuing intravenous therapy service on PICC use and PICC BSI rates.

SETTING

A 1,252-bed tertiary care teaching hospital.

METHODS

A 31-month retrospective cohort study was performed. PICC BSIs were defined using National Healthcare Safety Network criteria.

RESULTS

In total, 163 PICC BSIs were identified (3.13 BSIs per 1,000 catheter-days). PICC use was higher in intensive care units (ICUs) than non-ICU areas (PICC utilization ratio, 0.109 vs 0.059 catheter-days per patient-day for ICU vs non-ICU; rate ratio [RR], 1.84 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.78-1.91]). PICC BSI rates were higher in ICUs (4.79 vs 2.79 episodes per 1,000 catheter-days; RR, 1.7 [95% CI, 1.10-2.61]). PICC use increased hospital-wide after the intravenous therapy service was discontinued (0.049 vs 0.097 catheter-days per patient-day; P =.01), but PICC BSI rates did not change (2.68 vs 3.63 episodes per 1,000 catheter-days; P =.06). Of PICC BSIs, 73% occurred in non-ICU patients.

CONCLUSIONS

PICC use and PICC BSI rates were higher in ICUs; however, most of the PICC BSIs occurred in non-ICU areas. Reduction in intravenous therapy services was associated with increased PICC use across the hospital, but PICC BSI rates did not increase.