OBJECTIVE: No studies have specifically evaluated the safety of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) placement in patients with profound thrombocytopaenia. We prospectively determined the frequency of haemorrhagic complications of PICC placement in cancer patients with uncorrected profound thrombocytopaenia. METHODS: Profound thrombocytopaenia was defined as a platelet count <50 × 10(9)/l. No patients received transfusions before or after the procedure. Three types of adverse effects were analysed: minor oozing, mild haematoma and major haemorrhage. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-three PICC implantations in 101 cancer patients were prospectively included in the study: seven patients (7 %) had a solid tumour and 94 (93 %) a haematological malignancy. Among these 143 procedures in thrombocytopaenic patients, 93 (65 %) were performed with a platelet count 20-50 × 10(9)/l and 50 (35 %) had lower than 20 × 10(9)/l. No major haemorrhage was observed. Minor oozing was observed in six implantations (4 %) and mild haematoma in two (1.5 %), for a total of eight minor haemorrhagic adverse events (5.5 %). In patients with a platelet count <20 × 10(9)/l, 1/50 (2 %) had minor oozing and none had minor haematoma. CONCLUSIONS: In cancer patients with uncorrected profound thrombocytopaenia, the incidence of adverse events after PICC implantation was low, and was limited to minor haemorrhagic adverse events. KEY POINTS: • PICC placement has high technical success in profound thrombocytopaenic cancer patients. • Few adverse events are encountered after PICC placement, limited to minor haemorrhage. • PICC placement does not routinely require platelet transfusion in patients with thrombocytopaenia. • Such PICC placement still seems safe when the platelet count is <20 × 10 (9) /l.
OBJECTIVE: No studies have specifically evaluated the safety of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) placement in patients with profound thrombocytopaenia. We prospectively determined the frequency of haemorrhagic complications of PICC placement in cancerpatients with uncorrected profound thrombocytopaenia. METHODS: Profound thrombocytopaenia was defined as a platelet count <50 × 10(9)/l. No patients received transfusions before or after the procedure. Three types of adverse effects were analysed: minor oozing, mild haematoma and major haemorrhage. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-three PICC implantations in 101 cancerpatients were prospectively included in the study: seven patients (7 %) had a solid tumour and 94 (93 %) a haematological malignancy. Among these 143 procedures in thrombocytopaenic patients, 93 (65 %) were performed with a platelet count 20-50 × 10(9)/l and 50 (35 %) had lower than 20 × 10(9)/l. No major haemorrhage was observed. Minor oozing was observed in six implantations (4 %) and mild haematoma in two (1.5 %), for a total of eight minor haemorrhagic adverse events (5.5 %). In patients with a platelet count <20 × 10(9)/l, 1/50 (2 %) had minor oozing and none had minor haematoma. CONCLUSIONS: In cancerpatients with uncorrected profound thrombocytopaenia, the incidence of adverse events after PICC implantation was low, and was limited to minor haemorrhagic adverse events. KEY POINTS: • PICC placement has high technical success in profound thrombocytopaenic cancerpatients. • Few adverse events are encountered after PICC placement, limited to minor haemorrhage. • PICC placement does not routinely require platelet transfusion in patients with thrombocytopaenia. • Such PICC placement still seems safe when the platelet count is <20 × 10 (9) /l.
Authors: Lewis A Eisen; Mangala Narasimhan; Jeffrey S Berger; Paul H Mayo; Mark J Rosen; Roslyn F Schneider Journal: J Intensive Care Med Date: 2006 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.510
Authors: Paolo Della Vigna; Lorenzo Monfardini; Guido Bonomo; Giuseppe Curigliano; Alberto Agazzi; Massimo Bellomi; Franco Orsi Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-06-30 Impact factor: 11.105