Premium
Randomized controlled trial of peripherally inserted central catheters vs. peripheral catheters for middle duration in‐hospital intravenous therapy
Author(s) -
PERIARD D.,
MONNEY P.,
WAEBER G.,
ZURKINDEN C.,
MAZZOLAI L.,
HAYOZ D.,
DOENZ F.,
ZANETTI G.,
WASSERFALLEN J.B.,
DENYS A.
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
journal of thrombosis and haemostasis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.947
H-Index - 178
eISSN - 1538-7836
pISSN - 1538-7933
DOI - 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2008.03053.x
Subject(s) - medicine , peripherally inserted central catheter , randomized controlled trial , catheter , thrombosis , surgery , anesthesia , venous thrombosis , incidence (geometry) , intravenous therapy , patient satisfaction , physics , optics
Summary. Introduction: Intravenous (i.v.) therapy may be associated with important catheter‐related morbidity and discomfort. The safety, efficacy, comfort, and cost‐effectiveness of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) were compared to peripheral catheters (PCs) in a randomized controlled trial. Methods: Hospitalized patients requiring i.v. therapy ≥ five days were randomized 1:1 to PICC or PC. Outcomes were incidence of major complications, minor complications, efficacy of catheters, patient satisfaction, and cost‐effectiveness. Results: 60 patients were included. Major complications were observed in 22.6% of patients in the PICC group [six deep venous thrombosis (DVT), one insertion‐site infection] and 3.4% of patients in the PC group [one DVT; risk ratio (RR) 6.6; P = 0.03]. Superficial venous thrombosis (SVT) occurred in 29.0% of patients in the PICC group and 37.9% of patients in the PC group (RR 0.60; P = 0.20). Patients in the PICC group required 1.16 catheters on average during the study period, compared with 1.97 in the PC group ( P < 0.04). The mean number of venipunctures (catheter insertion and blood sampling) was 1.36 in the PICC group vs. 8.25 in the PC group ( P < 0.001). Intravenous drug administration was considered very or quite satisfying by 96.8% of the patients in the PICC group, and 79.3% in the PC group. Insertion and maintenance mean cost was 690 US$ for PICC and 237 US$ for PC. Discussion: PICC is efficient and satisfying for hospitalized patients requiring i.v. therapy ≥ five days. However, the risk of DVT, mostly asymptomatic, appears higher than previously reported, and should be considered before using a PICC.