A Comparison Study of Complication Rates-To PICC or to CVC?

hilman tjiang; Krishanth Naidu; Bella Nguyen; david hardman

Authors

hilman tjiang
Krishanth Naidu
Bella Nguyen
david hardman

Keywords:

central venous access, complications, picc, cvc, thrombophlebitis

Abstract

Background: Cost-effective, safe and dependable central venous access is fundamental in the care of anpatients. This study sets out to compare the complication rates between electively insertedperipheral (PICCs) and central venous cathethers (CVCs) in operating theatres. Methods: A retrospective clinical audit was undertaken. Complications included in this study are: malposition events, thrombotic/thrombophlebitis, infection and dysfunction. Results: A total of 189 patients met the inclusion criteria. Malpositioning of the catheter tips and thrombotic/thrombophlebitic events more often occurred after PICCs insertion than CVCs. There was no statistical difference in the catheter associated infection and dysfunction rate for PICCs and CVCs. The highest number of complications occured in the first 7 indwelling days. Conclusion: This study highlights that the potential advantages of reduced expected cost- and labour- effectiveness of PICCs as traditionally perceived, may be inaccurate, and further awareness of complications associated with PICCs need to be considered.

Downloads

How to Cite

A Comparison Study of Complication Rates-To PICC or to CVC?. (2014). Global Journal of Medical Research, 14(47), 13-17. https://medicalresearchjournal.org/index.php/GJMR/article/view/

Download Citation

References

Turcotte S, Dube S, Beauchamp G (2006) Peripherally inserted central venous catheters are not superior to central venous catheters in the acute care of surgical patients on the ward World journal of surgery. 30(8), 1605-1619.

A. Pikwer, J. Åkeson, S. Lindgren (2011) Complications associated with peripheral or central routes for central venous cannulation Anaesthesia. 67(1), 65-71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06911.x

Alhimyary A, Fernandez C, Picard M, Tierno K, Pignatone N, Chan HS (1996) Safety and efficacy of total parenteral nutrition delivered via a peripherally inserted central venous catheter Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. 11(5), 199-203.

C. Cowl, J. Weinstock, A. Al-Jurf, K. Ephgrave, J. Murray, K. Dillon (2000) Complications and cost associated with parenteral nutrition delivered to hospitalized patients through either subclavian or peripherally-inserted central catheters Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland). 19(4), 237-243.

Duerksen DR, Papineau N, Siemens J, Yaffe C (1999) Peripherally inserted central catheters for parenteral nutrition: a comparison with centrally inserted catheters JPEN Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition. 23(2), 85-89.

Giuffrida DJ, Bryan-Brown CW, Lumb PD, Kwun KB, Rhoades HM (1986) Central vs peripheral venous catheters in critically ill patients Chest. 90(6), 806-809.

Worth LJ, Seymour JF, Slavin MA (2008) Infective and thrombotic complications of central venous catheters in patients with hematological malignancy: prospective evaluation of nontunneled devices Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer. 17(7), 811-818.

S. Amerasekera, C. Jones, R. Patel, M. Cleasby (2009) Imaging of the complications of peripherally inserted central venous catheters Clinical radiology. 64(8), 832-840.

McGee DC, Gould MK (2003) Preventing complications of central venous catheterization The New England journal of medicine. 348(12), 1123-1133.