Risk of venous thromboembolism associated with peripherally inserted central catheters: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Patient Safety Enhancement Program and Hospital Outcomes Program of Excellence (HOPE) of the Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. Electronic address: .
The Lancet (Impact Factor: 45.22). 05/2013; 382(9889). DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60592-9
Source: PubMed


BACKGROUND: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism. However, the size of this risk relative to that associated with other central venous catheters (CVCs) is unknown. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the risk of venous thromboembolism associated with PICCs versus that associated with other CVCs. METHODS: We searched several databases, including Medline, Embase, Biosis, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Conference Papers Index, and Scopus. Additional studies were identified through hand searches of bibliographies and internet searches, and we contacted study authors to obtain unpublished data. All human studies published in full text, abstract, or poster form were eligible for inclusion. All studies were of adult patients aged at least 18 years who underwent insertion of a PICC. Studies were assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa risk of bias scale. In studies without a comparison group, the pooled frequency of venous thromboembolism was calculated for patients receiving PICCs. In studies comparing PICCs with other CVCs, summary odds ratios (ORs) were calculated with a random effects meta-analysis. FINDINGS: Of the 533 citations identified, 64 studies (12 with a comparison group and 52 without) including 29 503 patients met the eligibility criteria. In the non-comparison studies, the weighted frequency of PICC-related deep vein thrombosis was highest in patients who were critically ill (13·91%, 95% CI 7·68-20·14) and those with cancer (6·67%, 4·69-8·64). Our meta-analysis of 11 studies comparing the risk of deep vein thrombosis related to PICCs with that related to CVCs showed that PICCs were associated with an increased risk of deep vein thrombosis (OR 2·55, 1·54-4·23, p<0·0001) but not pulmonary embolism (no events). With the baseline PICC-related deep vein thrombosis rate of 2·7% and pooled OR of 2·55, the number needed to harm relative to CVCs was 26 (95% CI 13-71). INTERPRETATION: PICCs are associated with a higher risk of deep vein thrombosis than are CVCs, especially in patients who are critically ill or those with a malignancy. The decision to insert PICCs should be guided by weighing of the risk of thrombosis against the benefit provided by these devices. FUNDING: None.

Download full-text


Available from: Vineet Chopra, Oct 01, 2015
1 Follower
91 Reads
  • Source
    • "Bold: denotes statistically significant associations. 4 V. Chopra et al. / Thrombosis Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx Please cite this article as: Chopra V, et al, Patterns, risk factors and treatment associated with PICC-DVT in hospitalized adults: A nested case– control study, Thromb Res (2015), all central venous catheters are associated with thrombosis [20], PICCs are particularly relevant as they are known to increase this risk 2.5-fold compared to acute, non-tunneled central venous catheters [6]. Our findings support and expand evidence regarding PICC-DVT. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are associated with upper extremity-deep vein thrombosis (DVT). However, patterns, risk factors and treatment associated with this event remain poorly defined. To determine patterns, risk factors and treatment related to PICC-DVT in hospitalized patients. Between 2012-2013, consecutive cases of ultrasound-confirmed, symptomatic PICC-DVT were identified. For each case, at least two contemporaneous controls were identified and matched by age and gender. Patient- and device-specific data were obtained through electronic-medical records. Using variables selected a priori, multivariable logistic regression models were fit to the outcome of PICC-DVT, comparing cases to controls. 909 adult hospitalized patients (268 cases, 641 controls) were included in the study. Indications for PICC placement included long-term intravenous antibiotic therapy (n=447; 49.1%), in-hospital venous access for blood draws or infusion of medications (n=342; 44.2%), and total parenteral nutrition (n=120; 6.7%). Patients with PICC-DVT were more likely to have a history of venous thromboembolism (OR 1.70, 95% CI=1.02-2.82) or have undergone surgery while the PICC was in situ (OR 2.17, 95%CI=1.17-4.01 for surgeries longer than two hours). Treatment for PICC-DVT varied and included heparin bridging, low molecular weight heparin only and device removal only; the average duration of treatment also varied across these groups. Compared to 4-Fr PICCs, 5- and 6-Fr PICCs were associated with greater risk of DVT (OR 2.74, 95%CI=0.75-10.09 and OR 7.40 95%CI=1.94-28.16, respectively). Patients who received both aspirin and statins were less likely to develop PICC-DVT than those that received neither treatment (OR 0.31, 95%CI=0.16-0.61). Receipt of pharmacological DVT prophylaxis during hospitalization showed a non-significant trend towards reduction in risk of PICC-DVT (OR=0.72, 95%CI=0.48-1.08). Several factors appear associated with PICC-DVT. While some of these characteristics may be non-modifiable, future studies that target potentially modifiable variables to prevent this adverse outcome would be welcomed. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
    Thrombosis Research 02/2015; 135(5). DOI:10.1016/j.thromres.2015.02.012 · 2.45 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are commonly inserted during hospitalization for a variety of clinical indications. To understand hospitalist experience, practice, knowledge, and opinions as they relate to PICCs. Web-based survey of hospitalists in 5 healthcare systems (representing a total of 10 hospitals) across Michigan. The overall response rate was 63% (227 hospitalists received invitations; 144 responded). Compared with central venous catheters, hospitalists felt that PICCs were safer to insert (81%) and preferred by patients (74%). Although 84% of respondents reported that placing a PICC solely to obtain venous access was appropriate, 47% also indicated that 10%–25% of PICCs inserted in their hospitals might represent inappropriate placement. Hospitalist knowledge regarding PICC-related venous thromboembolism was poor, with only 4% recognizing that PICC-tip verification was performed principally to prevent thrombosis. Furthermore, several potential practice-related concerns were identified: one-third of hospitalists indicated that they never examine PICCs for externally evident problems, such as exit-site infection; 48% responded that once inserted, they did not remove PICCs until a patient was ready for discharge; and 51% admitted that, at least once, they had “forgotten” that their patient had a PICC. Hospitalist experiences, practice, opinions, and knowledge related to PICCs appear to be variable. Because PICC use is growing and is often associated with complications, examining the impact of such variation is necessary. Hospitals and health systems should consider developing and implementing mechanisms to monitor PICC use and adverse events. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2013;8:309–314.
    Journal of Hospital Medicine 03/2013; 8(6). DOI:10.1002/jhm.2031 · 2.30 Impact Factor
  • Source
Show more