peripherally inserted central catheter

Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: Own Experience of Clinical Use

MAINTENANCE THERAPY , ,

A.M. Pronina, I.A. Kurmukov, O.A. Obuhova, Sh.R. Kashiya

N.N. Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center under the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, 24 Kashirskoye sh., Moscow, Russian Federation, 115478

For correspondence: Anna Mikhailovna Pronina, MD, 24 Kashirskoye sh., Moscow, Russian Federation, 115478; Tel.: +7(499)324-62-59; e-mail: belmar9@yandex.ru

For citation: Pronina AM, Kurmukov IA, Obukhova OA, Kashiya ShR. Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: Own Experience of Clinical Use. Clinical oncohematology. 2015;8(4):428–435 (In Russ).

DOI: 10.21320/2500-2139-2015-8-4-428-435

ABSTRACT

Background & Aims. At present, peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) are widely used as a medium-term vascular access for patients with various diseases. In this country, these catheters are used rarely to provide vascular access in patients with cancer. Therefore, the purpose of the study is to formulate indications for implantation of these catheters to oncological patients taking into account our own clinical experience in implantation and operation of PICC.

Methods. From November, 2013, till November, 2014, at N.N. Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center, 19 peripherally inserted central catheters were implanted to 19 patients. All catheters were placed by anesthesiologists. Peripheral or deep veins of a shoulder were punctured under the dynamic ultrasonic control.

Results. Successful catheterization was achieved in 18 of 19 patients. The median PICC dwell time was 33 days (range from 1 to 116 days), a total of 692 catheter days. In one case, during the implantation of a catheter, some technical complication were observed which made impossible its further using. Complications related to the catheter were reported in 7 cases including 2 cases of local infection of the soft tissue at the stationary point of a catheter. Inadvertent removal of a catheter was registered in 3 cases. No complications were registered.

Conclusion. Implantation of peripheral inserted central catheters under dynamic ultrasonic control has both high percent of a successful сatheterization and a minimum number of procedure-related complications. After training the staff and patients in operation of the catheter, this venous access allows to perform all necessary courses of treatments of up to 6 months.

Keywords: venous access, peripherally inserted central catheter, ultrasound-guided venipuncture.

Received: March 25, 2015

Accepted: September 30, 2015

Read in PDF (RUS)pdficon

REFERENCES

  1. Abedin S, Kapoor G. Peripherally inserted central venous catheters are a good option for prolonged venous access in children with cancer. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2008;51:251–5.
  2. Royal College of Nursing (2005b) IV Therapy Forum. Standards for Infusion Therapy. London: Royal College of Nursing; 2005.
  3. Petersen J, Delaney JH, Brakstad MT, et al. Silicone venous access devices positioned with their tips high in the superior vena cava are more likely to malfunction. Am J Surg. 1999;178(1):38–41. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9610(99)00124-5.
  4. Bard Access Systems, Groshong PICC. Instructions for Use.
  5. National Association of Vascular Access Networks. NAVAN Position Statement. J. Vasc. Access Device. 1998;3(2):8–10.
  6. Yamamoto AJ, Solomon JA, Soulen MC, et al. Sutureless securement device reduces complications of peripherally inserted central venous catheters. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2002;13(1); 77–81. doi: 10.1016/s1051-0443(07)60012-8.
  7. Ahn DH, Illum HB, Wang DH, et al. Upper Extremity Venous Thrombosis in Patients With Cancer With Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheters: A Retrospective Analysis of Risk Factors. J Oncol Pract. 2012;9(1):8–12. doi: 10.1200/jop.2012.000595.
  8. Chopra V, Ratz D, Kuhn L, et al. Peripherally inserted central catheter-related deep vein thrombosis: contemporary patterns and predictors. J Thromb Haemost. 2014;12(6):847–54. doi: 10.1111/jth.12549.
  9. Liem TK, Yanit KE, Moseley SE, et al. Peripherally inserted central catheter usage patterns and associated symptomatic upper extremity venous thrombosis. J Vasc Surg. 2012;55(3):761–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2011.10.005.
  10. Kirkpatrick A, Rathbun S, Whitsett T, Raskob G. Prevention of central venous catheter-associated thrombosis: a meta-analysis. Am J Med. 2007;120(10):901.e1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2007.05.010.
  11. Kuter DJ. Thrombotic complications of central venous catheters in cancer patients. The Oncologist. 2004;9:207–16. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.9-2-207.
  12. Kenney BD, David M, Bensoussan AL. Anticoagulation without catheter removal in children with catheter-related central vein thrombosis. J Pediatr Surg. 1996;31:816–8. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3468(96)90141-4.
  13. Tran H, Arellano M, Chamsuddin A, et al. Deep venous thromboses in patients with hematological malignancies after peripherally inserted central venous catheters. Leuk Lymphoma. 2010;51:1473–7. doi: 10.3109/10428194.2010.481065.
  14. Kovacs MJ, Kahn SR, Rodger M, et al. A pilot study of central venous catheter survival in cancer patients using low-molecular-weight heparin (dalteparin) and warfarin without catheter removal for the treatment of upper extremity deep vein thrombosis. J Thromb Haemost. 2007;5:1650–3. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2007.02613.x.
  15. Maki DG, Kluger DM, Crnich CJ. The risk of bloodstream infection in adults with different intravascular devices: a systematic review of 200 published prospective studies. Mayo Clin Proc 2006;81(9):1159–71. doi: 10.4065/81.9.1159.
  16. Chopra V, O’Horo JC, Rogers MA, Maki DG, Safdar N. 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 Contr Hosp Epidemiol. 2013;34(9):908–18. doi: 10.1086/671737.
  17. Vidal V, Muller C, Jacquier A, et al. Prospective evaluation of PICC line related complications. J Radiol. 2008;89(4):495–8. doi: 10.1016/s0221-0363(08)71453-7.
  18. Merrell SW, Peatross BG, Grossman MD, et al. Peripherally inserted central venous catheters. Low-risk alternatives for ongoing venous access. West J Med. 1994;160:25–30.
  19. Hoffer AK, Bloch RD, Borsa JJ, et al. Peripherally inserted central venous catheters with distal versus proximal valves: prospective randomized trial. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2001;12:1173–7. doi: 10.1016/s1051-0443(07)61676-5.
  20. Ryder MA. Peripherally inserted central venous catheters. Nurs Clin North Am. 1993;28(4):937–71.
  21. Gallieni M, Pittiruti M, Biffi R. Vascular Access in Oncology Patients. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;58:323–46. doi: 10.3322/ca.2008.0015.

 

Peripherally inserted central catheter: literature review

SUPPORTIVE THERAPY , , , ,

L.V. Tsepenshchikov and V.K. Lyadov

Therapeutic-and-rehabilitation Center, Moscow, Russian Federation

ABSTRACT

A peripherally inserted central catheter is the minimally invasive device used for the long-term central venous access. It is placed on the inner surface of the arm, reduces the risk of complications, and facilitates an outpatient management. This article presents the literature review on the catheter types used in practical oncology, but, unfortunately, quite rarely in the Russian Federation. We describe all available PICC designs, their characteristics, indications and contraindications to implantation, as well as prevention and management of complications.

Keywords: PICC, PIC-catheter, PIC-line, peripherally inserted central catheter, central venous catheter

Read in PDF (RUS)pdficon

REFERENCES

  1. Bishop L., Dougherty L., Bodenham A. et al. Guidelines on the insertion and management of central venous access devices in adults. Int. J. Lab. Hematol. 2007; 29: 261–78.
  2. Goossens G.A., Vrebos M., Stas M. et al. Central vascular access devices in oncology and hematology considered from a different point of view: how do patients experience their vascular access ports? J. Infus. Nurs. 2005; 28: 61–7.
  3. Galloway S., Bodenham A. Long-term central venous access. Br. J. Anaesth. 2004; 92: 722–34.
  4. Horattas M.C., Trupiano J., Hopkins S. et al. Changing concepts in longterm central venous access: catheter selection and cost savings. Am. J. Infect. Control 2001; 29: 32–40.
  5. Bow E.J., Kilpatrick M.G., Clinch J.J. Totally implantable venous access ports systems for patients receiving chemotherapy for solid tissue malignancies: A randomized controlled clinical trial examining the safety, efficacy, costs, and impact on quality of life. J. Clin. Oncol. 1999; 17(4): 1267.
  6. Chernecky C. Satisfaction versus dissatisfaction with venous access devices in outpatient oncology: a pilot study. Oncol. Nurs. Forum 2001; 28(10): 1613–6.
  7. Maki D.G., Kluger D.M., Crnich C.J. The risk of bloodstream infection in adults with different intravascular devices: a systematic review of 200 published prospective studies. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2006; 81: 1159–71.
  8. O’Grady N.P., Alexander M., Dellinger E.P. et al. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly Rep. 2002; 51: 1–36.
  9. Periard D., Monney P., Waeber G. et al. Randomized controlled trial of peripherally inserted central catheters vs peripheral catheters for middle duration in hospital intravenous therapy. J. Thromb. Haemost. 2008; 6: 1281–8.
  10. Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario. Nursing Best Practice Guidelines. Project: Assessment and Device Selection for Vascular Access. Available at: www.rnao.org/bestpractices. Accessed July 14, 2008.
  11. Royal College of Nursing IV Therapy Forum. Standards for Infusion Therapy. London, UK: Royal College of Nursing; 2005. Available at: http://www. rcn.org.uk/_data/assets/pdf_file/0005/78593/002179.pdf. Accessed August 15, 2008.
  12. Poole S.M. Quality Issues in Access Device Management. J. Intraven. Nurs. 1999; 22(6 Suppl.): S26–31.
  13. Hsieh C.C., Weng H.H., Huang W.S. et al. Analysis of risk factors for central venous port failure in cancer patients. World J. Gastroenterol. 2009; 15(37): 4709–14.
  14. Pittiruti M., Malerba M., Carriero C. et al. Which is the easiest and safest technique for central venous access? A retrospective survey of more than 5,400 cases. J. Vasc. Access 2000; 1(3): 100–7.
  15. Puntis J.W. Percutaneous insertion of central venous feeding catheters. Arch. Dis. Child. 1986; 61(11): 1138–40. 16. Ryder M.A. Peripherally inserted central venous catheters. Nurs. Clin. N. Am. 1993; 28(4): 937–71.
  16. Sofocleous C.T., Schur I., Cooper S.G. et al. Sonographically guided placement of peripherally inserted central venous catheters: review of 355 procedures. Am. J. Roentgenol. 1998; 170(6): 1613–6.
  17. Biffi R., De Braud F., Orsi F. et al. A randomized, prospective trial of central venous ports connected to standard open-ended or Groshong catheters in adult oncology patients. Cancer 2001; 92: 1204–12.
  18. Farkas J.C., Liu N., Bleriot J.P. et al. Single- versus triple-lumen central catheter-related sepsis: a prospective randomized study in a critically ill population. Am. J. Med. 1992; 93: 277–82.
  19. Gallieni M., Pittiruti M., Biffi R. Vascular access in oncology patients. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2008; 58(6): 323–46. doi: 10.3322/CA.2008.0015. Epub 2008 Oct 29.
  20. Crnich C.J., Halfmann J.A., Crone W.C. et al. The effects of prolonged ethanol exposure on the mechanical properties of polyurethane and silicone catheters used for intravascular access. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2005; 26(8): 708–14.
  21. Curelaru I., Gustavsson B., Hansson A.H. et al. Material thrombogenicity in central venous catheterization II. A comparison between plain silicone elastomer, and plain polyethylene, long, antebrachial catheters. Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand. 1983; 27(2): 158–64.
  22. Linder L.E., Curelaru I., Gustavsson B. et al. Material thrombogenicity in central venous catheterization: a comparison between soft, antebrachial catheters of silicone elastomer and polyurethane. J. Parenter. Enteral. Nutr. 1984; 8(4): 399–406.
  23. Johnston A.J., Streater C.T., Noorani R. et al. The effect of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) valve technology on catheter occlusion rates — The ‘ELeCTRiC’ study. J. Vasc. Access 2012; 13(4): 421–5. doi: 10.5301/ jva.5000071.
  24. Ong C.K., Venkatesh S.K., Lau G.B. et al. Prospective randomized comparative evaluation of proximal valve polyurethane and distal valve silicone peripherally inserted central catheters. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2010; 21(8): 1191–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2010.04.020. Epub 2010 Jul 3.
  25. Dezfulian C., Lavelle J., Nallamothu B.K. et al. Rates of infection for single-lumen versus multilumen central venous catheters: a meta-analysis. Crit. Care Med. 2003; 31: 2385–90.
  26. Zurcher M., Tramer M.R., Walder B. Colonization and bloodstream infection with single- versus multi-lumen central venous catheters: a quantitative systematic review. Anesth. Analg. 2004; 99(1): 177–82.
  27. Safdar N., Maki D.G. Risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection with peripherally inserted central venous catheters used in hospitalized patients. Chest 2005; 128(2): 489–95.
  28. Elsharkawy H., Lewis B.S., Steiger E. et al. Post placement positional atrial fibrillation and peripherally inserted central catheters. Minerva Anestesiol. 2009; 75(7–8): 471–4. Epub 2008 Jan 24.
  29. Yamamoto A.J., Solomon J.A., Soulen M.C. et al. Sutureless securement device reduces complications of peripherally inserted central venous catheters. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2002; 13(1): 77–81.
  30. Vescia S., Baumgartner A.K., Jacobs V.R. et al. Management of venous port systems in oncology: a review of current evidence. Ann. Oncol. 2008; 19(1): 9–15. Epub 2007 Sep 9.
  31. Schiffer C.A., Mangu P.B., Wade J.C. et al. Central venous catheter care for the patient with cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline. J. Clin. Oncol. 2013; 31(10): 1357–70. doi: 10.1200/ JCO.2012.45.5733. Epub 2013 Mar 4.
  32. Assessment and device selection for vascular access, RNAO, 2004. (Project/Initiative: Nursing Best Practice Research Centre (NBPRC), Type of Guideline: Clinical, Status: Published, Publish Date: 2004). http://rnao.ca/
  33. Alport B., Burbridge B., Lim H. Bard PowerPICC Solo2 vs Cook TurboJect: A Tale of Two PICCs. Can. Assoc. Radiol. J. 2012; 63(4): 323–8. doi: 10.1016/j.carj.2011.05.002. Epub 2012 Jan 30.
  34. Schwengel D.A., McGready J., Berenholtz S.M. et al. Peripherally inserted central catheters: a randomized, controlled, prospective trial in pediatric surgical patients. Anesth. Analg. 2004; 99(4): 1038–43.
  35. Sansivero G.E. Features and selection of vascular access devices. Semin. Oncol. Nurs. 2010; 26(2): 88–101. doi: 10.1016/j.soncn.2010.02.006.
  36. Taylor R.W., Palagiri A.V. Central venous catheterization. Crit. Care Med. 2007; 35(5): 1390–6.
  37. Ryder M.A. Peripherally inserted central venous catheters. Nurs. Clin. N. Am. 1993; 28(4): 937–71.
  38. Pratt R.J., Pellowe C.M., Wilson J.A. et al. Epic2: National evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections in NHS hospitals in England. J. Hosp. Infect. 2007; 65(Suppl. 1): S1–64.
  39. Miller D.L., O’Grady N.P. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections: recommendations relevant to interventional radiology for venous catheter placement and maintenance. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2012; 23(8): 997–1007. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2012.04.023.
  40. Leroyer C., Lasheras A., Marie V. et al. Prospective follow-up of complications related to peripherally inserted central catheters. Med. Mal. Infect. 2013; 43(8): 350–5. doi: 10.1016/j.medmal.2013.06.013. Epub 2013 Jul 19.
  41. Grove J.R., Pevec W.C. Venous thrombosis related to peripherally inserted central catheters. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2000; 11: 837–40.
  42. Forauer A.R., Alonzo M. Change in peripherally inserted central catheter tip position with abduction and adduction of the upper extremity. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2000; 11(10): 1315–8.
  43. Motta Leal Filho J.M., Carnevale F.C., Nasser F. et al. Endovascular techniques and procedures, methods for removal of intravascular foreign bodies. Rev. Bras. Cir. Cardiovasc. 2010; 25(2): 202–8.
  44. Chow L.M., Friedman J.N., Macarthur C. et al. Peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) fracture and embolization in the pediatric population. J. Pediatr. 2003; 142(2): 141–4.
  45. Li J., Fan Y.Y., Xin M.Z. et al. A randomised, controlled trial comparing the long-term effects of peripherally inserted central catheter placement in chemotherapy patients using B-mode ultrasound with modified Seldinger technique versus blind puncture. Eur. J. Oncol. Nurs. 2013; pii: S1462-3889(13)00084-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2013.08.003.
  46. Gong P., Huang X.E., Chen C.Y. et al. Comparison of complications of peripherally inserted central catheters with ultrasound guidance or conventional methods in cancer patients. Asian Pac. J. Cancer. Prev. 2012; 13(5): 1873–5.
  47. Mermel L.A., Farr B.M., Sherertz R.J. et al. Guidelines for the management of intravascular catheter-related infections. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2001; 32(9): 1249–72. Epub 2001 Apr 3.
  48. Raad I., Hanna H., Maki D. Intravascular catheter-related infections: advances in diagnosis, prevention, and management. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2007; 7(10): 645–57.
  49. Yap Y.S., Karapetis C., Lerose S. et al. Reducing the risk of peripherally inserted central catheter line complications in the oncology setting. Eur. J. Cancer Care (Engl.) 2006; 15: 342–7.
  50. Cheong K., Perry D., Karapetis C. et al. High rate of complications associated with peripherally inserted central venous catheters in patients with solid tumours. Intern. Med. J. 2004; 34: 234–8.
  51. Gallieni M. Transparent film for intravascular catheter exit-site dressings. J. Vasc. Access 2004; 5(2): 69–75.
  52. Ho K.M., Litton E. Use of chlorhexidine-impregnated dressing to prevent vascular and epidural catheter colonization and infection: a meta-analysis. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2006; 58(2): 281–7. Epub 2006 Jun 6.
  53. Kuter D.J. Thrombotic complications of central venous catheters in cancer patients. Oncologist 2004; 9(2): 207–16.
  54. Verso M., Agnelli G. Venous thromboembolism associated with long-term use of central venous catheters in cancer patients. J. Clin. Oncol. 2003; 21(19): 3665–75.
  55. Campisi C., Biffi R., Pittiruti M. Catheter-related central venous thrombosis: the development of a nationwide consensus paper in Italy. J. Assoc. Vasc. Access 2007; 12: 38–46. DOI: 10.2309/java.12-1-10.
  56. Zuha R., Price T., Powles R. et al. Paradoxical emboli after central venous catheter removal. Ann. Oncol. 2000; 11(7): 885–6.
  57. Karthaus M., Kretzschmar A., Kroning H. et al. Dalteparin for prevention of catheter-related complications in cancer patients with central venous catheters: final results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial. Ann. Oncol. 2006; 17: 289–96.
  58. Chan A., Iannucci A., Dager W.E. Systemic anticoagulant prophylaxis for central catheter- associated venous thrombosis in cancer patients. Ann. Pharmacother. 2007; 41: 635–41.
  59. Agnelli G., Verso M. Therapy Insight: venous-catheter-related thrombosis in cancer patients. Nat. Clin. Pract. Oncol. 2006; 3: 214–22.
  60. Fagnani D., Franchi R., Porta C. et al. Thrombosis-related complications and mortality in cancer patients with central venous devices: an observational study on the effect of antithrombotic prophylaxis. Ann. Oncol. 2007; 18: 551–5.
  61. Liem T.K., Yanit K.E., Moseley S.E. et al. Peripherally inserted central catheter usage patterns and associated symptomatic upper extremity venous thrombosis. J. Vasc. Surg. 2012; 55(3): 761–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2011.10.005.
  62. Petersen J., Delaney J.H., Brakstad M.T. et al. Silicone venous access devices positioned with their tips high in the superior vena cava are more likely to malfunction. Am. J. Surg. 1999; 178(1): 38–41.
  63. van Rooden C.J., Schippers E.F., Barge R.M. et al. Infectious complications of central venous catheters increase the risk of catheter-related thrombosis in hematology patients: a prospective study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005; 23: 2655–60.
  64. Kabsy Y., Baudin G., Vinti H. et al. Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) in oncohematology. Bull. Cancer 2010; 97(9): 1067–71. doi: 10.1684/ bdc.2010.1167.
  65. Abedin S., Kapoor G. Peripherally Inserted central venous catheters are a good option for prolonged venous access in children with cancer. Pediatr. Blood Cancer 2008; 51: 251–5.
  66. Vidal V., Jacquier A., Monnet O. et al. Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC): a promising technique. J. Radiol. 2008; 89: 907–9.
  67. Amerasekera S.S., Jones C.M., Patel R. et al. Imaging of the complications of peripherally inserted central venous catheters. Clin. Radiol. 2009; 64: 832–40.
  68. Walshe L.J., Malak S.F., Eagan J. et al. Complication rates among cancer patients with peripherally inserted central catheters. J. Clin. Oncol. 2002; 20: 3276–81.
  69. http://www.bardaccess.com/nurse-powergroshong.php
  70. http://www.medicalexpo.fr/prod/bard-access-systems/catheterscentraux-insertion-peripherique-78824-487750.html#product-item_549075
  71. http://www.ufrgs.br/imunovet/molecular_immunology/invivo_surgical. html
  72. http://crosmed.com/lang-en/gastro-oncologia/75-valvula-groshong.html
  73. http://richardwarrendesign.com/Workpages/Med%206.html
  74. http://www.medicalexpo.fr/prod/bard-access-systems/catheterscentraux-insertion-peripherique-78824-487750.html#product-item_549075
  75. http://www.bardaccess.com/ultra-siterite-6.php?section=Overview
  76. http://www.bluephantom.com/details.aspx?cid=&pid=68
  77. http://bardaccess.com/acc-guardiva.php?section=Overview
  78. http://www.wolfmed.com/statlock-picc-plus-sp-50-bx.html.