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.

A retrospective study of the safety of over 100,000 peripherally-inserted central catheters days for parenteral supportive treatments.

The type of central vascular access device providers chosen for providing parenteral supportive treatments has evolved over the past years, going from routinely used centrally inserted catheters to a more recent trend of peripherally-inserted central catheters (PICCs) when expected treatment duration is less than 6 months. This multicenter retrospective study aimed to provide a comprehensive assessment of the safety of PICCs in administering parenteral supportive treatments. All adult inpatients and outpatients who had a PICC inserted for the administration of parenteral supportive treatments (i.e., parenteral nutrition, intravenous fluids, blood products, or antibiotics) between September 2007 and December 2014 in four public Italian hospitals were included. The primary outcome was PICC removal because of an adverse event (AE, defined as occlusion, exit-site infection, or symptomatic thrombosis). Among the 1,250 included patients, 178 PICC-related removals because of AEs (14.2%; 1.62 AEs per 1,000 PICC days) were reported. Rates of PICC removal because of occlusion, exit-site infection, and symptomatic thrombosis were 1.08, 0.32, and 0.23 per 1,000 PICC days, respectively. The median dwell-time between PICC insertion and its removal because of an AE was 67 days (interquartile range 28-180 days). Risk of PICC removal due to AE was higher with open-system PICCs [hazard ratio = 2.75, 95% confidence interval 1.52-4.96]. In this study, we found preliminary evidence that PICCs can be safely used to administer parenteral supportive treatments lasting up to 6 months. PICCs may be a relevant alternative to centrally inserted catheters for medium-term parenteral supportive treatments.

The Risk of Adverse Events Related to Extended-Dwell Peripheral Intravenous Access.

Midline catheters (MCs) may be useful to avoid repeated venipuncture in patients requiring prolonged intravenous infusions with limited adverse events (AEs). We analyzed 2 Italian hospital databases to ascertain the safety of MCs. Among 1,538 adult patients, 154 MC-related AEs (10%; 2.49 AEs per 1,000 MC days) were reported.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;875-877.

Evaluating safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of PICC securement by subcutaneously anchored stabilization device.

PURPOSE: In recent years, a large variety of medical devices has become available. Every device must be efficient, safe and cost effective, but it is not enough to use it properly without considering the environment in which it will be employed. We applied this kind of analysis to subcutaneously anchored sutureless devices (SAS). METHODS: This is a one-center prospective observational study on safety, effectiveness and cost effectiveness of an SAS device (SecurAcath, Interrad) for securement of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) in 30 adult cancer patients with treatment expected to be >60 days. RESULTS: During 4963 catheter days and after 709 dressing changes (documented by 373 pictures), the use of SAS was associated with no episode of PICC dislodgement and a lower incidence of complications if compared to traditional securement devices. Insertion, management and removal of SAS were not associated with an increased pain perception by the patients. Cost effectiveness was particularly evident for long dwelling PICCs. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that SAS is a highly effective and cost-effective method for securement of medium- to long-term PICCs with expected duration longer than 30 days. The introduction of SAS had a positive impact on our healthcare organization.