Peripherally inserted central catheter design and material for reducing catheter failure and complications
View/ Open
File version
Version of Record (VoR)
Author(s)
Schults, JA
Kleidon, T
Petsky, HL
Stone, R
Schoutrop, J
Ullman, AJ
Year published
2019
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:
To assess the effectiveness of PICC material and design in reducing catheter failure and complications.
Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are routinely inserted in adults and children who require intermediate intravascular therapy such as total parenteral nutrition (Russell 2014; Ullman 2017). PICCs are long (50 cm to 60 cm), flexible catheters usually constructed of polyurethane or silicone material. Typically inserted in the basilic, brachial or cephalic veins of the upper arm, the tip of the PICC terminates in a central ...
View more >This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effectiveness of PICC material and design in reducing catheter failure and complications. Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are routinely inserted in adults and children who require intermediate intravascular therapy such as total parenteral nutrition (Russell 2014; Ullman 2017). PICCs are long (50 cm to 60 cm), flexible catheters usually constructed of polyurethane or silicone material. Typically inserted in the basilic, brachial or cephalic veins of the upper arm, the tip of the PICC terminates in a central vessel providing natural haemodilution of irritant infusates, such as chemotherapy. In recent decades, PICC use has increased due to perceived advantages in comparison to central venous catheters (CVCs), such as bedside placement by non‐medical staff and reduced complication profile during insertion (Bertoglio 2016; Chopra 2013a; Johansson 2013). PICCs are associated with greater patient‐reported satisfaction in adults requiring central venous access (Periard 2008). They have also been demonstrated to be a cost‐effective intervention, with the average cost of a PICC insertion estimated at USD 690 per patient (Periard 2008), compared to approximately USD 1500 for other central vascular access devices (Di Carlo 2012). However, despite these perceived benefits, PICC complications are common, with 30% of PICCs failing prior to the completion of therapy (Shen 2009; Ullman 2015).
View less >
View more >This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effectiveness of PICC material and design in reducing catheter failure and complications. Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are routinely inserted in adults and children who require intermediate intravascular therapy such as total parenteral nutrition (Russell 2014; Ullman 2017). PICCs are long (50 cm to 60 cm), flexible catheters usually constructed of polyurethane or silicone material. Typically inserted in the basilic, brachial or cephalic veins of the upper arm, the tip of the PICC terminates in a central vessel providing natural haemodilution of irritant infusates, such as chemotherapy. In recent decades, PICC use has increased due to perceived advantages in comparison to central venous catheters (CVCs), such as bedside placement by non‐medical staff and reduced complication profile during insertion (Bertoglio 2016; Chopra 2013a; Johansson 2013). PICCs are associated with greater patient‐reported satisfaction in adults requiring central venous access (Periard 2008). They have also been demonstrated to be a cost‐effective intervention, with the average cost of a PICC insertion estimated at USD 690 per patient (Periard 2008), compared to approximately USD 1500 for other central vascular access devices (Di Carlo 2012). However, despite these perceived benefits, PICC complications are common, with 30% of PICCs failing prior to the completion of therapy (Shen 2009; Ullman 2015).
View less >
Journal Title
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Volume
2019
Issue
7
Copyright Statement
© 2019 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. This review is published as a Cochrane Review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 7. Art. No.: CD013366. Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to comments and criticisms, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be consulted for the most recent version of the Review.
Subject
Biomedical and clinical sciences
Clinical sciences
Psychology
Health sciences