错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Safety and effectiveness of tunneled peripherally inserted central catheters versus conventional PICC in adult cancer patients

  • Jia Li,
  • Zeyin Hu,
  • Mengna Luo,
  • Zhenming Wu,
  • Xinman Dou,
  • Zhiying Wang,
  • Shuang Yu,
  • Liping Xiao,
  • Jinhua Qiu,
  • Shuxian Yu,
  • Mengyun Chen,
  • Suxiang Lu,
  • Binglian Su,
  • Li Cheng,
  • Yuying Fan,
  • Hui-ying Qin

摘要

Objectives

This study aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of tunneled peripherally inserted central catheters (T-PICC) vs. conventional PICCs (C-PICC) in adult cancer patients.

Methods

A multicentre randomized controlled trial was conducted between April 2021 and January 2022 in seven hospitals in China. 564 participants were randomly assigned to T-PICC or C-PICC. These data were collected and compared: the baseline characteristics and catheterization-related characteristics, periprocedural complications, and long-term complications.

Results

Five-hundred fifty-three participants (aged, 52.6 ± 12.3 years; female, 39.1%) were ultimately analyzed. No significant differences in periprocedural complications were found between the T-PICC and C-PICC groups (all p > 0.05). Compared with C-PICC, T-PICC significantly reduced the incidence of long-term complications (26.4% vs. 39.9%, p < 0.001). Specifically, reduced complications were found in central line-associated bloodstream infection (1.8% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.04), thrombosis (1.1% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.03), catheter dislodgement (4.7% vs. 10.1%, p = 0.01), non-infectious oozing (17.3% vs. 28.6%, p = 0.002), local infection (3.6% vs. 7.6%, p = 0.04), skin irritation (6.1% vs. 10.9%, p = 0.046), and reduced unplanned catheter removal (2.2% vs. 7.2%, p = 0.005). No significant differences were found between T-PICC and C-PICC regarding catheter occlusion (6.5% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.73) or skin damage (2.2% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.58).

Conclusion

T-PICC is safe and effectively reduces long-term complications.

Clinical relevance statement

The tunneled technique is effective in reducing PICC-related long-term complications. Thus, it is recommended for cancer patients at high risk of PICC-related complications.

Trial registration

The registration number on https://www.chictr.org.cn/ is ChiCTR2100044632. The name of the trial registry is “A multicenter randomized controlled study of clinical use of tunneled vs. non-tunneled PICC”.

Key Points

Cather-related complications are associated with the technique of catheterization.

Compared with conventional PICC, tunneled PICC reduced catheter-related long-term complications.

Tunneled PICC placement provides an alternative catheterization method for cancer patients.