Clinical study of complications of a peripherally inserted central catheter in cancer patients.
André Luis Victor Bonfim, Germana Alves de Brito, Aline Lourenço Baptista and 3 others
PMID 36853924WHAT IT FOUND
Early PICC removal because of complications occurred in 29.3% of cancer patients.
Multiple passages, double-lumen catheters, catheter type, high CRP, and low platelets at removal were reported alongside complications.
Key findings
01Early PICC removal due to complications occurred in 29.3% (n=105) of patients: mechanical complications 13.6% (n=49), infection 13.6% (n=49), and thrombosis 1.94% (n=7).
02Patients with multiple PICC passages had more mechanical complications and infections, with infection rising from 9.1% to 41.7% and mechanical complications rising from 12.3% to 33.3%.
03Catheter type was reported with complication type: Groshong valves had more mechanical complications, Power PICC non-valve catheters had more infections, and double-lumen catheters had increased rates of all complication types.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study was retrospective and relied on electronic medical records, so missing or inconsistent information could affect the counts. It counted only complications that caused early catheter removal, so complications that were treated without removing the PICC were not included. It was done at one cancer centre in Brazil, so complication rates may not match other settings or patient groups. Patients who had another central catheter besides the PICC were excluded, and patients who did not reach 24 hours of use were excluded, so the findings apply only to the included group. The study reports associations, not proof that any catheter type, passage number, lab value, or nursing practice caused complications.
Declared interests
The authors used their own funding and declared no competing interests.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the 29.3% early removal rate as the total complication rate. The study only counted complications that forced early removal, so problems that were treated during use were not included.