The safety of peripherally inserted central venous catheters in critically ill patients: A retrospective observational study

Abstract

Background:

Centrally inserted central venous catheters (CICCs) are commonly placed in critically ill patients who require a central venous catheter (CVC). Recently, peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) have been widely used on general wards. However, the safety of PICCs in critically ill patients remains unclear.

Method:

We conducted a retrospective observational study at a mixed intensive care unit (ICU). Adult patients (⩾18 years) who were emergently admitted to the ICU and underwent CVC insertion between April 2019 and March 2021 were enrolled. We compared the safety of PICCs and CICCs. The primary outcome was the overall rate of catheter-related complications, including bloodstream infections, thrombosis, insertional trauma, catheter malfunction, and accidental removal. We used a stabilized inverse probability weighting (sIPW) model to estimate the effects of PICC use.

Results:

A total of 239 CVCs (PICCs, 53; CICCs, 186) were inserted into 229 patients. Although the severity of illness did not differ significantly between the groups, the length of hospital stay and mean indwelling catheter duration were significantly longer in the PICC group. There was no significant intergroup difference in the overall rate of catheter-related complications (PICC: 9.4% vs CICC: 3.8%; odds ratio [OR]: 2.65; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63–10.2, p = 0.145), and there were 7.7 and 9.0 complications per 1000 catheter days in the PICC and CICC groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.14–2.65, p = 0.513). After adjustment using the sIPW model, PICC use was not found to be associated with a reduction in catheter-related complications (adjusted OR: 3.10; 95% CI: 0.90–10.7; adjusted HR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.14–1.97).

Conclusion:

We found no significant differences in catheter-related complications between patients treated using CICCs and those treated using PICCs after emergency ICU admission. Our findings imply that PICCs may be an alternative to CICCs in critically ill patients.

Keywords

Central venous catheter PICC complications critical illness intensive care units

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

McGee

Gould

. Preventing complications of central venous catheterization. N Engl J Med 2003; 348(12): 1123–1133.

Grau

Clarivet

Lotthé

, et al. Complications with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) used in hospitalized patients and outpatients: a prospective cohort study. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2017; 6(1): 18.

Nolan

Yadav

Cawcutt

, et al. Complication rates among peripherally inserted central venous catheters and centrally inserted central catheters in the medical intensive care unit. J Crit Care 2016; 31(1): 238–242.

Chopra

Flanders

Saint

, et al. The Michigan appropriateness guide for intravenous catheters (MAGIC): results from a multispecialty panel using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. Ann Intern Med 2015; 163(6): S1–S39.

Buetti

Marschall

Drees

, et al. Strategies to prevent central line-Associated bloodstream infections in acute-care hospitals: 2022 update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2022; 43: 553–569.

von Elm

Altman

Egger

, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61(4): 344–349.

Knaus

Wagner

Draper

, et al. The APACHE III prognostic system. Chest 1991; 100(6): 1619–1636.

Vincent

Moreno

Takala

, et al. The SOFA (sepsis-related organ failure assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. Intensive Care Med 1996; 22(7): 707–710.

Quan

Couris

, et al. Updating and validating the Charlson comorbidity index and score for risk adjustment in hospital discharge abstracts using data from 6 countries. Am J Epidemiol 2011; 173(6): 676–682.

10.

National Healthcare Safety Network. Bloodstream infection event (central line-associated bloodstream infection and non-central line associated bloodstream infection). 2021, pp.1–50.

11.

Kanda

. Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software “EZR” for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant 2013; 48(3): 452–458.

12.

Pinelli

Little

Kokotis

, et al. Assessment of the MAGIC recommendations in context of evolving evidence based on the use of PICC in ICU. J Vasc Access. Epub ahead of print 23 October 2021. DOI: 10.1177/11297298211048019

13.

Brandmeir

Davanzo

Payne

, et al. A randomized trial of complications of peripherally and centrally inserted central lines in the neuro-intensive care unit: results of the NSPVC trial. Neurocrit Care 2020; 32(2): 400–406.

14.

Ajenjo

Morley

Russo

, et al. Peripherally inserted central venous catheter–associated bloodstream infections in hospitalized adult patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011; 32(2): 125–130.

15.

Lorente

Huidobro

Martín

, et al. Accidental catheter removal in critically ill patients: a prospective and observational study. Crit Care 2004; 8(4): R229–R33.

16.

Evans

Rhodes

Alhazzani

, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Intensive Care Med 2021; 47(11): 1181–1247.

17.

Raza

Nokes

Alvarez

, et al. Use of peripherally inserted central catheters with a dedicated vascular access specialists team versus centrally inserted central catheters in the management of septic shock patients in the ICU. J Vasc Access. Epub ahead of print 10 June 2022. DOI: 10.1177/11297298221105323

18.

Smith

Cartin-Ceba

Colquist

, et al. Peripherally inserted central catheter placement in a multidisciplinary intensive care unit: a preliminary study demonstrating safety and procedural time in critically ill subjects. J Vasc Access 2021; 22(1): 101–106.

19.

Balsorano

Virgili

Villa

, 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 Access 2020; 21(1): 45–54.

20.

Chopra

Anand

Hickner

, et al. Risk of venous thromboembolism associated with peripherally inserted central catheters: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2013; 382(9889): 311–325.

21.

Muñoz

Mismetti

Poggio

, et al. Clinical outcome of patients with upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis. Chest 2008; 133(1): 143–148.

22.

Pinelli

Balsorano

. Catheter-related thrombosis natural history in adult patients: a tale of controversies, misconceptions, and fears. J Vasc Access 2020; 21(4): 405–407.

23.

Lamperti

Biasucci

Disma

, et al. European Society of Anaesthesiology guidelines on peri- operative use of ultrasound-guided for vascular access (PERSEUS vascular access). Eur J Anaesthesiol 2020; 37(5): 344–376.