ライフサイエンスコーパス: PICC

1 PICC placement with fluoroscopic guidance is highly succ

2 PICC pressure versus CICC pressure correlated (r = 0.99)

3 PICC tips were regarded as central if they resided anywh

4 PICCs are associated with a higher risk of deep vein thr

5 PICCs can be used to measure central venous pressure and

6 PICCs were significantly more likely to have a CLABSI (H

7 : Hickman versus PICCs versus PORTs (2:2:1), PICCs versus Hickman (1:1), PORTs versus Hickman (1:1),

8 companies and outside institutions, and 146 PICCs (42%) were managed exclusively at MSKCC.

9 For these 205 PICCs, 131 nurses from 74 home-care companies and instit

10 During the study period, 2574 PICCs were placed in 1807 children.

11 In all, 115 (32.8%) of 351 PICCs were removed as a result of a complication, for a

12 cessitating catheter removal occurred in 534 PICCs (20.8%) during 46 021 catheter-days (11.6 complica

13 entral PICC tip location was achieved in 760 PICCs (90.2%).

14 In a children's hospital, 843 PICCs were placed in 698 patients (age range, 0 days to

15 There were 231 midlines and 97 PICCs inserted into 64 patients (39 male and 25 female;

16 allocated randomly (1:1) to receive either a PICC impregnated with miconazole and rifampicin or a sta

17 to a previously estimated length by either a PICC nurse or a pediatric interventional radiologist, ac

18 hildren in the PICC group, 158 (15.0%) had a PICC complication that required an emergency department

19 December 2017 through January 2020 who had a PICC or midline placement for the indications of difficu

20 eduction of VTE rates in patients who have a PICC.

21 least 18 years who underwent insertion of a PICC.

22 e ward or intensive care unit who received a PICC for any reason during clinical care in 47 hospitals

23 atients who received a transfusion through a PICC in the left arm were significantly more likely to d

24 ery red blood cell unit transfused through a PICC, there was a significantly increased risk of venous

25 To ascertain awareness of CVCs, whether a PICC or triple-lumen catheter was present was determined

26 We excluded babies for whom a PICC was not inserted from safety analyses, as these ana

27 ween 24 h after randomisation and 48 h after PICC removal or death.

28 In strategy A, all PICC placements were initially attempted at the patient'

29 All PICCs inserted in adult and pediatric patients at Memori

30 All PICCs were placed by a specialized team of PICC nurses a

31 In strategy B, all PICCs were placed by interventional radiologists under f

32 from patients who had an indwelling CICC and PICC concomitantly.

33 e events or dysfunctions between the MVC and PICC groups.

34 re effective and safer than both Hickman and PICCs.

35 was low, with no difference between MCs and PICCs.

36 IRRs) showed that patients with midlines and PICCs had similar rates of adverse events (IRR 1.18, P=0

37 With the baseline PICC-related deep vein thrombosis rate of 2.7% and poole

38 Bedside PICC placement morbidity can be reduced via US inspectio

39 ficant difference in the risk of DVT between PICCs and midlines was observed.

40 In patients with cancer, PICCs were rated as appropriate for irritant or vesicant

41 ated peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line and its effectiveness in reducing catheter as

42 umen peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) or a tunneled central venous catheter (CVC) was ra

43 ia a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC).

44 N), peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC), and hospital cost.

45 ugh peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) affects the risk of venous thromboembolism compar

46 Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and midlines are frequently used for short-term v

47 Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are a common vascular access device used in clini

48 Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are associated with an increased risk of venous t

49 Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are frequently used for peripheral intravenous th

50 Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are frequently used to deliver outpatient courses

51 via peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) associated with better delivery of nutrition and

52 of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) at the bedside may result in tip malposition.

53 vs peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (

54 of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) has grown substantially in recent years.

55 ith peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) has not been adequately evaluated.

56 Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) have a 29% complication rate.

57 of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).

58 for peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) may reduce the risk of device failure due to infe

59 of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) placed has risen significantly.

60 n), peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), and totally implanted ports (PORTs) are used to

61 use peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs).

62 of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs).

63 ipherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) are prone to infectious, thrombotic, and mechanic

64 ttent fluoroscopic guidance, a final central PICC tip location was achieved in 760 PICCs (90.2%).

65 io to receive a hydrophobic or chlorhexidine PICC or a standard polyurethane PICC and were followed f

66 not lower with hydrophobic or chlorhexidine PICCs than with standard polyurethane PICCs.

67 h throughput process of modifying commercial PICC catheters with fluoropolymer is quicker, safer and

68 ormed a retrospective cohort study comparing PICC and oral therapy for the treatment of acute osteomy

69 In studies comparing PICCs with other CVCs, summary odds ratios (ORs) were ca

70 g to the relevant comparison or comparisons (PICC vs Hickman n=424, 212 [50%] on PICC and 212 [50%] o

71 f insertion and removal argues for continued PICC use in the cancer population.

72 bies who needed a peripherally inserted CVC (PICC) were allocated randomly (1:1) to receive either a

73 VA]) of three central venous access devices: PICCs versus Hickman (non-inferiority; 10% margin); PORT

74 e be taken prior to placing CVCs, especially PICCs, due to the serious complications they have been s

75 2 test was used to compare initial and final PICC tip locations according to patient age, catheter si

76 Two hundred five PICCs (58%) were managed by home-care companies and outs

77 nts referred to the tertiary care center for PICC insertion, 294 (180 males [61.2%]; median [IQR] age

78 ncer; 44% infection; 6% other indication for PICC).

79 ethod to develop appropriate indications for PICC use across patient populations.

80 ia US inspection of the ipsilateral neck for PICC tip malposition in the IJ.

81 wever, an optimal catheter to vein ratio for PICC insertion has not previously been investigated to i

82 ecutive adult patients who were referred for PICC and eligible for MVC.

83 Adults and children who were referred for PICC placement were assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive

84 ng adults and children who were referred for PICC placement, the risk of device failure due to noninf

85 The size of the vein used for PICC insertion and thus the catheter to vein ratio is th

86 Adult patients waiting for PICC insertion at a large metropolitan teaching hospital

87 or midline catheters and 19 (12-27) days for PICCs (P < .001).

88 Similar complication rates were observed for PICCs (110 [52%] of 212) and Hickman (103 [49%] of 212).

89 h midlines (6.90 per 1000 VAD days) than for PICCs (2.89 per 1000 VAD days).

90 Of 20 545 patients who had PICCs placed, 4743 (23.1% [95% CI, 20.9% to 25.3%]) had

91 ion) to receive an antimicrobial-impregnated PICC (430 babies) or standard PICC (431 babies).

92 was higher in the antimicrobial-impregnated PICC group (relative risk 3.51, 95% CI 1.16-10.57, p=0.0

93 %) patients in the antimicrobial-impregnated PICC group and 50 events from 45 (10%) babies in the sta

94 4.77-12.13) in the antimicrobial-impregnated PICC group versus 7.86 days (5.00-12.53) days in the sta

95 wn staining of the antimicrobial-impregnated PICC.

96 d with miconazole and rifampicin-impregnated PICCs compared with standard PICCs for newborn babies.

97 r a standard (non-antimicrobial-impregnated) PICC.

98 %-61.6%, P < 0.001), a 48-fold difference in PICC lines (aggregate rate: 18.9%, range: 1.7%-81.8%, P

99 Despite reductions in PICC complications, further efforts are needed to preven

100 ions (CLABSIs), and catheter malfunctions in PICCs and TLs, and risk factors of CVC-related VTE.

101 For peripherally compatible infusions, PICC use was rated as inappropriate when the proposed du

102 f which 723 (85.8%) had a noncentral initial PICC tip position and required additional manipulation.

103 ce required catheter manipulation of initial PICC tip position in 723 cases (85.8%).

104 Access Networks guidelines, and the initial PICC tip location was then determined by means of spot f

105 The decision to insert PICCs should be guided by weighing of the risk of thromb

106 n perceived role: 1) an operator who inserts PICCs; 2) a consultant whose views are not valued by the

107 gy B is more cost-effective for all intended PICC uses.

108 y A is more cost-effective for most intended PICC uses.

109 ed blood cell delivery through a multi-lumen PICC is associated with a greater risk of thrombosis tha

110 ions were administered through a multi-lumen PICC was 1.96 (95% CI 1.47-2.61; p<0.0001) compared with

111 blood cell transfusion through a multi-lumen PICC, 61 had venous thromboembolism.

112 usions were delivered through a single-lumen PICC (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.44-2.14; p=0.95) or central veno

113 For the PICC group, a 4F, single-lumen PICC without a valve was positioned under fluoroscopy at

114 urements were taken from 19-gauge dual-lumen PICCs and from 7-Fr, 16-gauge, 18-gauge, and pulmonary a

115 nsfusing red blood cells through multi-lumen PICCs seems necessary.

116 ere placed more frequently than single-lumen PICCs.

117 ts with an eGFR less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m2, PICC placement varied widely across hospitals (interquar

118 eGFR less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m2, multilumen PICCs were placed more frequently than single-lumen PICC

119 associated with complications necessitating PICC removal.

120 risk factors for complications necessitating PICC removal.

121 bolism compared with transfusion through non-PICC devices.

122 Noncentral PICC tip locations, younger age, and pediatric ICU expos

123 In adjusted analysis, all noncentral PICC tip locations-midline (IRR 4.59, 95% CI, 3.69-5.69)

124 and the association with appropriateness of PICC use in hospitals.

125 Within each scenario, appropriateness of PICC use was compared with that of other venous access d

126 ifampicin resistance in positive cultures of PICC tips was higher in the antimicrobial-impregnated PI

127 determine the incidence and risk factors of PICC-related complications with a 1-year prospective obs

128 ts receiving PICCs who had CKD, frequency of PICC-related complications, and variation in the proport

129 omparison studies, the weighted frequency of PICC-related deep vein thrombosis was highest in patient

130 ications from any cause during the period of PICC placement occurred in 77 participants (21.5%) in th

131 primary end point was defined as the rate of PICC tip malposition in the ipsilateral IJ as detected b

132 Given the magnitude and seriousness of PICC complications, clinicians should reconsider the pra

133 l PICCs were placed by a specialized team of PICC nurses and interventional radiology technologists i

134 1% (60 of 239) of clinicians were unaware of PICC presence.

135 ificantly more likely to report that <10% of PICCs at their facility were inserted for inappropriate

136 ions for insertion, maintenance, and care of PICCs is thus important for patient safety.

137 other types of antimicrobial impregnation of PICCs and alternative approaches for preventing infectio

138 erence was less than 10%, non-inferiority of PICCs was not confirmed (odds ratio [OR] 1.15 [95% CI 0.

139 ascular access nurses placed the majority of PICCs at their facility, compared to operators (83%) or

140 en perceived role and reported percentage of PICCs placed for inappropriate reasons.

141 uthors' experience with bedside placement of PICCs by an i.v. team and data obtained from the literat

142 ns are frequently unaware of the presence of PICCs and triple-lumen catheters in hospitalized patient

143 ications, and variation in the proportion of PICCs placed in patients with CKD.

144 teral neck provides immediate recognition of PICCs in aberrant position facilitating catheter reposit

145 ess nurses' perceived role related to use of PICCs and the association with appropriateness of PICC u

146 r-related complications compared with use of PICCs.

147 pect may help ensure more appropriate use of PICCs.

148 teness Method to develop criteria for use of PICCs.

149 arisons (PICC vs Hickman n=424, 212 [50%] on PICC and 212 [50%] on Hickman; PORT vs Hickman n=556, 25

150 CC n=346, 147 [42%] on PORT and 199 [58%] on PICC).

151 Three hundred fifty-one PICCs were inserted during the study period and followed

152 robial therapy through a midline catheter or PICC between January 2017 and November 2023 across 69 Mi

153 Insertion of a midline catheter or PICC for OPAT following hospitalization.

154 cipants were randomized 1:1 to either MVC or PICC.

155 were randomized to receive MVCs (n = 146) or PICCs (n = 148); 135 and 137 participants, respectively,

156 central venous catheters were preferred over PICCs when 14 or fewer days of use were likely.

157 Pediatric PICC placement without fluoroscopic guidance required ca

158 included 843 consecutively placed pediatric PICCs, of which 723 (85.8%) had a noncentral initial PIC

159 aged 6 months to 18 years with newly placed PICCs or tunneled lines (TLs).

160 Commercially available polyurethane PICC catheter was modified by a three-step lamination pr

161 hlorhexidine PICC or a standard polyurethane PICC and were followed for 8 weeks.

162 xidine PICCs than with standard polyurethane PICCs.

163 tions, further efforts are needed to prevent PICC-associated complications in children.

164 review assessed 25 interventions to prevent PICC-associated infectious and noninfectious complicatio

165 nonsilicone catheters effectively prevented PICC complications.

166 s of PAC-1 or the interacting linker protein PICC-1/CCDC85A-C blocks elongation in embryos with compr

167 ary outcomes included adverse drug reaction, PICC line complication, and a composite of all 3 end poi

168 ibiotics at discharge, whereas 1055 received PICC-administered antibiotics.

169 time in logit models, patients who received PICCs had a greater risk of developing a major complicat

170 VT events was lower in patients who received PICCs vs midlines (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.38-0.74

171 sample of hospitalized patients who received PICCs, placement in those with CKD was common and not co

172 % (CI, 29.7% to 32.2%) of patients receiving PICCs had an eGFR less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m2; the corre

173 Percentage of patients receiving PICCs who had CKD, frequency of PICC-related complicatio

174 bolism was calculated for patients receiving PICCs.

175 Analysis by repeated measures showed PICC central venous pressure more than CICC central veno

176 y, patients transfused through a right-sided PICC were more likely to develop deep-vein thrombosis in

177 Moreover, some PICCs may not be placed for clinically valid reasons.

178 al-impregnated PICC (430 babies) or standard PICC (431 babies).

179 7.86 days (5.00-12.53) days in the standard PICC group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.03, 95% CI 0.89-1.18, p=

180 events from 45 (10%) babies in the standard PICC group.

181 cin-impregnated PICCs compared with standard PICCs for newborn babies.

182 intervention procedures included successful PICC repositioning during the initial procedure based on

183 creasing use has led to the realization that PICCs are associated with important complications, inclu

184 PICCs with that related to CVCs showed that PICCs were associated with an increased risk of deep vei

185 Bench work showed that PICCs, because of their longer length and narrower lumen

186 Vein diameter at the PICC insertion site was measured using ultrasound with i

187 nalyses were done with groups defined by the PICC used.

188 For the PICC group, a 4F, single-lumen PICC without a valve was

189 was low, with 0 in the MC group and 1 in the PICC control group (P > .99).

190 in both groups) but slightly greater in the PICC group in across-hospital (risk difference, 1.7% [95

191 the MVC group and 128 of 137 (93.4%) in the PICC group were without VC-related adverse event or dysf

192 Among the children in the PICC group, 158 (15.0%) had a PICC complication that req

193 strategy depends on the intended use of the PICC and the need to have the tip placed at the junction

194 ce to overcome the natural resistance of the PICC.

195 he IR suite, and (c) the intended use of the PICC.

196 in a 1:1 ratio to either the MC group or the PICC control group.

197 As a result, the PICC group had a much higher risk of requiring a return

198 charge administration of antibiotics via the PICC or the oral route.

199 The proportion of children treated via the PICC route varied across hospitals from 0 to 100%.

200 than those treated with antibiotics via the PICC route.

201 P = .02) for complications compared with the PICC control group.

202 rom the CICCs was 11 + 7 mm Hg, and from the PICCs was 12 + 7 mm Hg.

203 A 6-F tapered TL PICC was placed by a bedside nursing-based team with bac

204 The TL PICC design used in this study resulted in unacceptably

205 nography (US) of the veins containing the TL PICC was performed to detect occult venous thrombosis.

206 Masking of clinicians to PICC allocation was impractical because rifampicin cause

207 iews of the literature, scenarios related to PICC use, care, and maintenance were developed according

208 The median time to PICC removal was 8.20 days (IQR 4.77-12.13) in the antim

209 omes at neonatal unit discharge, and time to PICC removal were similar between the two groups, althou

210 Midlines may be an alternative to PICCs for adult CF patients although further research is

211 demonstrated as a noninferior alternative to PICCs.

212 atheters appeared to be safe alternatives to PICCs for OPAT, particularly if infusions were planned f

213 eral intravenous catheters were preferred to PICCs for use between 6 and 14 days.

214 the risk of deep vein thrombosis related to PICCs with that related to CVCs showed that PICCs were a

215 PORTs were superior to PICCs with a complication rate of 32% (47 of 147) versus

216 ation options were available: Hickman versus PICCs versus PORTs (2:2:1), PICCs versus Hickman (1:1),

217 PORTs versus Hickman (1:1), and PORTs versus PICCs (1:1).

218 (superiority; 15% margin); and PORTs versus PICCs (superiority; 15% margin).

219 eripheral cannulas, parenteral nutrition via PICCs is associated with better nutrient delivery and lo

220 Central venous pressure recorded via PICCs is slightly higher, but the difference is clinical

221 n PORT and 303 [54%] on Hickman; and PORT vs PICC n=346, 147 [42%] on PORT and 199 [58%] on PICC).

222 04 [17.1%]; aHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.56-1.12) vs PICCs.

223 ients with placement of midline catheters vs PICCs for short-term indications, midlines were associat

224 with a lower risk of major complications vs PICCs (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.23-0

225 tion (0.4% vs 1.6%; P < .001) in midlines vs PICCs; no significant difference in the risk of DVT betw

226 In wards, PICC-related complications occurred in 15.3% of patients

227 were midline catheters and 825 (29.2%) were PICCs.

228 1% (n=209), of which 60.3% (126 of 209) were PICCs.

229 t of the healthcare team are associated with PICC use in hospitals.

230 %) with midline catheters and 28 (3.4%) with PICCs (P < .001).

231 Data on 10 863 patients, 5758 with PICCs and 5105 with midlines (median [IQR] age of device

232 sk of venous thromboembolism associated with PICCs versus that associated with other CVCs.

233 Children with PICCs had a significantly higher incidence of catheter-r

234 milar or greater with midlines compared with PICCs for short-term use is unclear.

235 stream infection and occlusion compared with PICCs.

236 ith midlines was twice that of patients with PICCs (IRR 2.24, P=0.079, CI 0.91-5.56).

237 resented as per 1000 VAD days, patients with PICCs and midlines had similar rates of adverse events (

238 occur frequently among cancer patients with PICCs, and long-term follow-up is onerous.

239 Unawareness was greatest among patients with PICCs, where 25.1% (60 of 239) of clinicians were unawar

240 eveloped in 482 (5%) of 10 604 patients with PICCs.

241 ity of the cases, 80%, were in subjects with PICCs, which had a significantly higher risk of catheter

242 h midlines per 1000 VAD days than those with PICCs.