Navigating venous access: A guide for hospitalists : Navigating Venous Access

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. 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were identified through hand searches of bibliographies and internet searches, and we contacted study authors to obtain unpublished data.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. 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). 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. None. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are associated with central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI). The magnitude of this risk relative to central venous catheters (CVCs) is unknown. To compare risk of CLABSI between PICCs and CVCs. MEDLINE, CinAHL, Scopus, EmBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched. Full-text studies comparing the risk of CLABSI between PICCs and CVCs were included. Studies involving adults 18 years of age or older who underwent insertion of a PICC or a CVC and reported CLABSI were included in our analysis. Studies were evaluated using the Downs and Black scale for risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were used to generate summary estimates of CLABSI risk in patients with PICCs versus CVCs. Of 1,185 studies identified, 23 studies involving 57,250 patients met eligibility criteria. Twenty of 23 eligible studies reported the total number of CLABSI episodes in patients with PICCs and CVCs. Pooled meta-analyses of these studies revealed that PICCs were associated with a lower risk of CLABSI than were CVCs (relative risk [RR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.94). Statistical heterogeneity prompted subgroup analysis, which demonstrated that CLABSI reduction was greatest in outpatients (RR [95% CI], 0.22 [0.18-0.27]) compared with hospitalized patients who received PICCs (RR [95% CI], 0.73 [0.54-0.98]). Thirteen of the included 23 studies reported CLABSI per catheter-day. Within these studies, PICC-related CLABSI occurred as frequently as CLABSI from CVCs (incidence rate ratio [95% CI], 0.91 [0.46-1.79]). Only 1 randomized trial met inclusion criteria. CLABSI definition and infection prevention strategies were variably reported. Few studies reported infections by catheter-days. Although PICCs are associated with a lower risk of CLABSI than CVCs in outpatients, hospitalized patients may be just as likely to experience CLABSI with PICCs as with CVCs. Consideration of risks and benefits before PICC use in inpatient settings is warranted.