Article

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: 39.21). 05/2013; DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60592-9
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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were identified through hand searches of bibliographies and internet searches, and we contacted study authors to obtain unpublished data.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.

1 Bookmark
 · 
195 Views
  • Source
    [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; DOI:10.1016/j.thromres.2015.02.012 · 2.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Key Clinical MessageWe report a case of peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC)-associated deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Ultrasound images and video of subclavian thrombus are presented. PICC line-associated DVT, particularly in cancer patients is not uncommon. Point-of-care Emergency Department ultrasound can readily diagnose this complication and device removal is not always necessary.
    01/2015; DOI:10.1002/ccr3.187
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The use of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line for central venous access in thermally injured patients has increased in recent years despite a lack of evidence regarding safety in this patient population. A recent survey of invasive catheter practices among 44 burn centers in the United States found that 37% of burn units use PICC lines as part of their treatment protocol. The goal of this study was to compare PICC-associated complication rates with the existing literature in both the critical care and burn settings. The methodology involved is a single institution retrospective cohort review of patients who received a PICC line during admission to a regional burn unit between 2008 and 2013. Fifty-three patients were identified with a total of seventy-three PICC lines. The primary outcome measurement for this study was indication for PICC line discontinuation. The most common reason for PICC line discontinuation was that the line was no longer indicated (45.2%). Four cases of symptomatic upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (5.5%) and three cases of central line-associated bloodstream infection (4.3%, 2.72 infections per 1000 line days) were identified. PICC lines were in situ an average of 15 days (range 1 to 49 days). We suggest that PICC line-associated complication rates are similar to those published in the critical care literature. Though these rates are higher than those published in the burn literature, they are similar to central venous catheter-associated complication rates. While PICC lines can be a useful resource in the treatment of the thermally injured patient, they are associated with significant and potentially fatal risks.
    Journal of burn care & research: official publication of the American Burn Association 12/2014; 36(1). DOI:10.1097/BCR.0000000000000207 · 1.55 Impact Factor

Full-text

Download
69 Downloads
Available from
May 27, 2014