Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online 2021-1
Peripherally inserted central catheters inserted with current best practices have low deep vein thrombosis and central line–associated bloodstream infection risk compared with centrally inserted central catheters: A contemporary meta-analysis
Peripherally inserted central catheters and centrally inserted central catheters have numerous benefits but can be associated with risks. This meta-analysis compared central catheters for relevant clinical outcomes using recent studies more likely to coincide with practice guidelines.
Methods:
Several databases, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and EBM Reviews were searched for articles (2006–2018) that compared central catheters. Analyses were limited to peer-reviewed studies comparing peripherally inserted central catheters to centrally inserted central catheters for deep vein thrombosis and/or central line–associated bloodstream infections. Subgroup, sensitivity analyses, and patient-reported measures were included. Risk ratios, incidence rate ratios, and weighted event risks were reported. Study quality assessment was conducted using Newcastle–Ottawa and Cochrane Risk of Bias scales.
Results:
Of 4609 screened abstracts, 31 studies were included in these meta-analyses. Across studies, peripherally inserted central catheters were protective for central line–associated bloodstream infection (incidence rate ratio = 0.52, 95% confidence interval: 0.30–0.92), with consistent results across subgroups. Peripherally inserted central catheters were associated with an increased risk of deep vein thrombosis (risk ratio = 2.08, 95% confidence interval: 1.47–2.94); however, smaller diameter and single-lumen peripherally inserted central catheters were no longer associated with increased risk. The absolute risk of deep vein thrombosis was calculated to 2.3% and 3.9% for smaller diameter peripherally inserted central catheters and centrally inserted central catheters, respectively. On average, peripherally inserted central catheter patients had 11.6 more catheter days than centrally inserted central catheter patients (p = 0.064). Patient outcomes favored peripherally inserted central catheters.
Conclusion:
When adhering to best practices, this study demonstrated that concerns related to peripherally inserted central catheters and deep vein thrombosis risk are minimized. Dramatic changes to clinical practice over the last 10 years have helped to address past issues with central catheters and complication risk. Given the lower rate of complications when following current guidelines, clinicians should prioritize central line choice based on patient therapeutic needs, rather than fear of complications. Future research should continue to consider contemporary literature over antiquated data, such that it recognizes the implications of best practices in modern central catheterization.
FangSYangJSongL, et al. Comparison of three types of central venous catheters in patients with malignant tumor receiving chemotherapy. Patient Prefer Adherence2017; 11: 1197–1204.
2.
O’GradyNPAlexanderMBurnsLA, et al. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Am J Infect Control2011; 39: S1–S34.
3.
ChopraVO’HoroJCRogersMA, et al. The risk of bloodstream infection associated with peripherally inserted central catheters compared with central venous catheters in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2013; 34(9): 908–918.
4.
Al RaiyBFakihMGBryan-NomidesN, et al. Peripherally inserted central venous catheters in the acute care setting: a safe alternative to high-risk short-term central venous catheters. Am J Infect Control2010; 38(2): 149–153.
5.
FearonceGFFaraklasISaffleJR, et al. Peripherally inserted central venous catheters and central venous catheters in burn patients: a comparative review. J Burn Care Res2010; 31(1): 31–35.
6.
FletcherJJWilsonTJRajajeeV, et al. A randomized trial of central venous catheter type and thrombosis in critically ill neurologic patients. Neurocrit Care2016; 25(1): 20–28.
7.
NolanMEYadavHCawcuttKA, et al. Complication rates among peripherally inserted central venous catheters and centrally inserted central catheters in the medical intensive care unit. J Crit Care2016; 31(1): 238–242.
8.
Botella-CarreteroJICarreroCGuerraE, et al. Role of peripherally inserted central catheters in home parenteral nutrition: a 5-year prospective study. J Parenter Enteral Nutr2013; 37(4): 544–549.
9.
SakaiTKohdaKKonumaY, et al. A role for peripherally inserted central venous catheters in the prevention of catheter-related blood stream infections in patients with hematological malignancies. Int J Hematol2014; 100(6): 592–598.
10.
VashiPGVirginkarNPopielB, et al. Incidence of and factors associated with catheter-related bloodstream infection in patients with advanced solid tumors on home parenteral nutrition managed using a standardized catheter care protocol. BMC Infect Dis2017; 17(1): 372.
11.
CotogniPPittirutiMBarberoC, et al. Catheter-related complications in cancer patients on home parenteral nutrition: a prospective study of over 51,000 catheter days. J Parenter Enteral Nutr2013; 37(3): 375–383.
12.
WallCMooreJThachilJ.Catheter-related thrombosis: a practical approach. J Intensive Care Soc2016; 17(2): 160–167.
13.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Estimating the additional hospital inpatient cost and mortality associated with selected hospital-acquired conditions, 2017, https://www.ahrq.gov/hai/pfp/haccost2017.html
14.
Vascular Access Work Group. Clinical practice guidelines for vascular access. Am J Kidney Dis2006; 48(Suppl. 1): S248–S273.
15.
PittirutiMHamiltonHBiffiR, et al. ESPEN guidelines on parenteral nutrition: central venous catheters (access, care, diagnosis and therapy of complications). Clin Nutr2009; 28(4): 365–377.
16.
LingMLApisarnthanarakAJaggiN, et al. APSIC guide for prevention of central line associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI). Antimicrob Resist Infect Control2016; 5(1): 16.
17.
GorskiLAHagleMEBiermanS.Intermittently delivered IV medication and pH: reevaluating the evidence. J Infus Nurs2015; 38(1): 27–46.
18.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vital signs: central line–associated blood stream infections—United States, 2001, 2008, and 2009. J Ann Emerg Med2011; 58: 447–450.
19.
LvYHouYPanB, et al. Risk associated with central catheters for malignant tumor patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget2018; 9(15): 12376–12388.
20.
ChopraVAnandSHicknerA, et al. Risk of venous thromboembolism associated with peripherally inserted central catheters: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet2013; 382(9889): 311–325.
21.
LeungAHealCPereraM, et al. A systematic review of patient-related risk factors for catheter-related thrombosis. J Thromb Thrombol2016; 141(Suppl. 1): S47.
22.
BalsoranoPVirgiliGVillaG, et al. Peripherally inserted central catheter-related thrombosis rate in modern vascular access era-when insertion technique matters: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Vasc Access2020; 21: 45–54.
23.
MakiDGKlugerDMCrnichCJ.The risk of bloodstream infection in adults with different intravascular devices: a systematic review of 200 published prospective studies. Mayo Clin Proc2006; 81(9): 1159–1171.
24.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJ, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med2009; 6: e1000097.
HigginsJPAltmanDGGøtzschePC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ2011; 343: d5928.
28.
HigginsJGreenS (eds). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 5.1.0, http://handbook.cochrane.org (accessed April 2018).
29.
FuRVandermeerBWShamliyanTA, et al. Handling continuous outcomes in quantitative synthesis. In: AHRQ (ed.) Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), 2008.
30.
MolleePJonesMStackelrothJ, et al. Catheter-associated bloodstream infection incidence and risk factors in adults with cancer: a prospective cohort study. J Hosp Infect2011; 78(1): 26–30.
31.
RossVMGuenterPCorriganML, et al. Central venous catheter infections in home parenteral nutrition patients: outcomes from sustain: American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition’s National Patient Registry for Nutrition Care. Am J Infect Control2016; 44(12): 1462–1468.
32.
FracchiollaNSTodiscoEBilanciaA, et al. Clinical management of peripherally inserted central catheters compared to conventional central venous catheters in patients with hematological malignancies: a large multicenter study of the REL GROUP (Rete Ematologica Lombarda-Lombardy Hematologic Network, Italy). Am J Hematol2017; 92(12): E656–E659.
33.
TouréADuchampAPeraldiC, et al. A comparative study of peripherally-inserted and Broviac catheter complications in home parenteral nutrition patients. Clin Nutr2015; 34(1): 49–52.
34.
WilsonTJStetlerWRJrFletcherJJ. Comparison of catheter-related large vein thrombosis in centrally inserted versus peripherally inserted central venous lines in the neurological intensive care unit. Clin Neurol Neurosurg2013; 115(7): 879–882.
35.
LimMYAl-KaliAAshraniAA, et al. Comparison of complication rates of Hickman® catheters versus peripherally inserted central catheters in patients with acute myeloid leukemia undergoing induction chemotherapy. Leukem Lymphom2013; 54(6): 1263–1267.
36.
ChristensenLDHolstMBechLF, et al. Comparison of complications associated with peripherally inserted central catheters and Hickman™ catheters in patients with intestinal failure receiving home parenteral nutrition. Six-year follow up study. Clin Nutr2016; 35(4): 912–917.
37.
RefaeiMFernandesBBrandweinJ, et al. Incidence of catheter-related thrombosis in acute leukemia patients: a comparative, retrospective study of the safety of peripherally inserted vs. centrally inserted central venous catheters. Ann Hematol2016; 95(12): 2057–2064.
38.
WongWChanWIpS, et al. Infection rate of Hickman catheters versus peripherally inserted central venous catheters in oncology patients. Hong Kong J Radiol2015; 18: 197–204.
39.
WorthLJSeymourJFSlavinMA. Infective and thrombotic complications of central venous catheters in patients with hematological malignancy: prospective evaluation of nontunneled devices. Support Care Cancer2009; 17(7): 811–818.
40.
McDiarmidSHamelinLHuebschLB. Leading change: retrospective evaluation of a nurse-led initiative in vascular access options for autologous stem cell transplant recipients ranging from Hickman catheters to peripherally inserted central catheters. J Infus Nurs2006; 29(2): 81–88.
41.
GunstMMatsushimaKVanekS, et al. Peripherally inserted central catheters may lower the incidence of catheter-related blood stream infections in patients in surgical intensive care units. Surg Infect2011; 12(4): 279–282.
42.
RogersMABlumbergNBernsteinSJ, et al. Association between delivery methods for red blood cell transfusion and the risk of venous thromboembolism: a longitudinal study. Lancet Haematol2016; 3(12): e563–e571.
43.
YeXWongSWZhangJ, et al. Catheter-related upper limb venous thrombosis in a tertiary hospital setting. ANZ J Surg2016; 86(12): 1033–1037.
44.
ZackoCM. Complications associated with central venous access in the NSICU: PICC vs CVC (NSPVC). Bethesda, MD: United States National Library of Medicine, 2014.
45.
BhutaniGEl TersMKremersWK, et al. Evaluating safety of tunneled small bore central venous catheters in chronic kidney disease population: a quality improvement initiative. Hemodial Int2017; 21(2): 284–293.
46.
BabuKGSuresh BabuMCLokanathaD, et al. Outcomes, cost comparison, and patient satisfaction during long-term central venous access in cancer patients: experience from a Tertiary Care Cancer Institute in South India. Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol2016; 37(4): 232–238.
47.
BonizzoliMBatacchiSCianchiG, et al. Peripherally inserted central venous catheters and central venous catheters related thrombosis in post-critical patients. Intensive Care Med2011; 37(2): 284–289.
48.
SriskandarajahPWebbKChisholmD, et al. Retrospective cohort analysis comparing the incidence of deep vein thromboses between peripherally-inserted and long-term skin tunneled venous catheters in hemato-oncology patients. Thromb J2015; 13: 21.
49.
FukudaSNakajimaKMiyazakiY, et al. Use of double-lumen peripherally inserted central catheters for safer perioperative management of esophageal cancer patients. J Vasc Access2015; 16(4): 338–343.
50.
ShresthaNKShresthaJEverettA, et al. Vascular access complications during outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy at home: a retrospective cohort study. J Antimicrob Chemother2016; 71(2): 506–512.
51.
MalinoskiDEwingTBhaktaA, et al. Which central venous catheters have the highest rate of catheter-associated deep venous thrombosis: a prospective analysis of 2,128 catheter days in the surgical intensive care unit. J Trauma Acute Care Surg2013; 74(2): 454–462.
52.
KonstantinouEAKarampinisDFMitsosAP, et al. Central vascular catheters versus peripherally inserted central catheters in nurse anesthesia. A perspective within the Greek health system. J Vasc Access2013; 14(4): 373–378.
53.
ChopraVKuhnLFlandersSA, et al. Hospitalist experiences, practice, opinions, and knowledge regarding peripherally inserted central catheters: results of a national survey. J Hosp Med2013; 8(11): 635–638.
54.
VerboomMCOuwerkerkJSteeghsN, et al. Central venous access related adverse events after trabectedin infusions in soft tissue sarcoma patients; experience and management in a nationwide multi-center study. Clin Sarcoma Res2017; 7(1): 2.
55.
HaddadinYRegunathH. Central line associated blood stream infections (CLABSI). Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls, 2019.
56.
O’BrienJPaquetFLindsayR, et al. Insertion of PICCs with minimum number of lumens reduces complications and costs. J Am Coll Radiol2013; 10(11): 864–868.
57.
SacksGDDiggsBSHadjizachariaP, et al. Reducing the rate of catheter-associated bloodstream infections in a surgical intensive care unit using the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Central Line Bundle. Am J Surg2014; 207(6): 817–823.
58.
JohnsonLGrueberSSchlotzhauerC, et al. A multifactorial action plan improves hand hygiene adherence and significantly reduces central line-associated bloodstream infections. Am J Infect Control2014; 42(11): 1146–1151.
59.
GuerinKWagnerJRainsK, et al. Reduction in central line-associated bloodstream infections by implementation of a postinsertion care bundle. Am J Infect Control2010; 38(6): 430–433.
60.
RosenthalVDMakiDGRodriguesC, et al. Impact of International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC) strategy on central line-associated bloodstream infection rates in the intensive care units of 15 developing countries. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2010; 31(12): 1264–1272.
61.
KreinSLKuhnLRatzD, et al. Use of designated nurse PICC teams and CLABSI prevention practices among U.S. hospitals: a survey-based study. J Patient Safe2019; 15(4): 293–295.
62.
EvansRSSharpJHLinfordLH, et al. Risk of symptomatic DVT associated with peripherally inserted central catheters. Chest2010; 138(4): 803–810.
63.
GorskiLA. The 2016 infusion therapy standards of practice. Home Healthc Now2017; 35: 10–18.
64.
KahnSRLimWDunnAS, et al. Prevention of VTE in nonsurgical patients: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest2012; 141(Suppl. 2): e195S–e226S.
65.
GroveJRPevecWC. Venous thrombosis related to peripherally inserted central catheters. J Vasc Interv Radiol2000; 11: 837–840.
66.
MoureauNL. Vessel health and preservation: the right approach for vascular access. Cham: Springer, 2019.
67.
KleidonTUllmanAJZhangL, et al. How does your PICCOMPARE? A pilot randomized controlled trial comparing various PICC materials in pediatrics. J Hosp Med2018; 13(8): 517–525.
68.
MayRMMaginCMMannEE, et al. An engineered micropattern to reduce bacterial colonization, platelet adhesion and fibrin sheath formation for improved biocompatibility of central venous catheters. Clin Transl Med2015; 4: 9.
69.
CarrPJGlynnRWDineenB, et al. A pilot intravenous cannulation team: an Irish perspective. Br J Nurs2010; 19(10): S19–S27.
70.
RobinsonMKMogensenKMGrudinskasGF, et al. Improved care and reduced costs for patients requiring peripherally inserted central catheters: the role of bedside ultrasound and a dedicated team. J Parenter Enteral Nutr2005; 29(5): 374–379.
71.
CaersJFontaineCVinh-HungV, et al. Catheter tip position as a risk factor for thrombosis associated with the use of subcutaneous infusion ports. Support Care Cancer2005; 13(5): 325–331.
72.
KarnikRValentinAWinklerWB, et al. Duplex sonographic detection of internal jugular venous thrombosis after removal of central venous catheters. Clin Cardiol1993; 16(1): 26–29.
73.
SheikhMATopoulosAPDeitcherSR. Isolated internal jugular vein thrombosis: risk factors and natural history. Vasc Med2002; 7(3): 177–179.
74.
AscherESalles-CunhaSHingoraniA. Morbidity and mortality associated with internal jugular vein thromboses. Vasc Endovascular Surg2005; 39(4): 335–339.
75.
MajorKMBulicSRoweVL, et al. Internal jugular, subclavian, and axillary deep venous thrombosis and the risk of pulmonary embolism. Vascular2008; 16(2): 73–79.
76.
WuXStuderWSkarvanK, et al. High incidence of intravenous thrombi after short-term central venous catheterization of the internal jugular vein. J Clin Anesth1999; 11(6): 482–485.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
