Are peripherally inserted central catheters superior to central venous catheters?

0

A Power PICC may be a better choice than a CVC in patients undergoing devascularisation requiring catheterisation” Jing et al (2016).

Abstract:

Peripherally-inserted central catheters (PICC) have a greater retention time and less complications compared to central venous catheters (CVC). The study was conducted from From January of 2014 to December 2015 at Beijing DiTan Hospital, Beijing, China, and comprised 70 patients undergoing devascularisation. Of the total, 36(51.4%) patients underwent placement of PICC (Group A), while 34(48.6%) underwent had CVC (Group B). Venous catheterisation was successful in all patients. The median duration of venous catheterization in Group A was greater than that in Group B (p=0.002). Catheter-associated complications did not differ between the groups (p=0.46).

The level of blood platelet (PLT) count, Prothrombin activity (PTA) and white blood cell (WBC) count before venous catheterisation were independent risk factors for bleeding at the puncture site and catheter-related infections. A Power PICC may be a better choice than a CVC in patients undergoing devascularisation requiring catheterisation. For patients with a lower PLT count, a decreased PTA, or a decreased WBC, venous catheterisation should be performed with caution.

Reference:

Jing, W., Rong, H., Li, J., Xia, Z.H., Yu, Z.H. and Ke, Z. (2016) The power peripherally inserted central catheter is superior to a central venous catheter in management of patients with esophageal variceal bleeding undergoing devascularization. The Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association. 66(Suppl 3)(10):S59-S61.

Thank you to our partners for supporting IVTEAM

Share.

Comments are closed.

Free Email Updates
Join 5.5K IVTEAM members. Subscribe now and be the first to receive all the latest free updates from IVTEAM!
100% Privacy. We don't spam.