Tianyuan Xu1, Lawrence Kingsley1, Susan DiNucci2, Gwen Messer2, Jong-Hyeon Jeong3, Brian Morgan4, Kathleen Shutt5, Mohamed H Yassin6. 1. Department of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 2. Infection Control Department, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Mercy, Pittsburgh, PA. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; Department of Clinical and Translational Science, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 4. Intravenous Access Team, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Mercy, Pittsburgh, PA. 5. Infectious Diseases Division, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 6. Infection Control Department, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Mercy, Pittsburgh, PA; Infectious Diseases Division, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. Electronic address: mhy8@pitt.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are a commonly used central intravenous (IV) access device, which can be associated with significant complications. Midline catheters (MCs) are peripheral IV access devices that may reduce the need for central lines and hence decrease central line-associated bloodstream infections. The objective of this study is to compare the utilization and safety of PICCs and MCs. METHODS: This was a retrospective study comparing the use and outcomes of PICCs and MCs at a large academic medical center between January and May 2015. Data were collected using electronic medical records and IV team insertion data. Statistical software was used for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 206 PICCs and 200 MCs were inserted in 367 patients within the study duration. Patients with MCs were more likely to have complications than those with PICCs (19.5% vs 5.8%, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: MCs were associated with a higher risk of non-life-threatening complications versus PICCs, which showed fewer but more serious complications, including bacteremia. The decision to move toward more use of MCs is not without risk. Institutions should continue to review the utilization and safety data of IV catheter use to determine the most appropriate use of these devices. Copyright Â
BACKGROUND: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are a commonly used central intravenous (IV) access device, which can be associated with significant complications. Midline catheters (MCs) are peripheral IV access devices that may reduce the need for central lines and hence decrease central line-associated bloodstream infections. The objective of this study is to compare the utilization and safety of PICCs and MCs. METHODS: This was a retrospective study comparing the use and outcomes of PICCs and MCs at a large academic medical center between January and May 2015. Data were collected using electronic medical records and IV team insertion data. Statistical software was used for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 206 PICCs and 200 MCs were inserted in 367 patients within the study duration. Patients with MCs were more likely to have complications than those with PICCs (19.5% vs 5.8%, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS:MCs were associated with a higher risk of non-life-threatening complications versus PICCs, which showed fewer but more serious complications, including bacteremia. The decision to move toward more use of MCs is not without risk. Institutions should continue to review the utilization and safety data of IV catheter use to determine the most appropriate use of these devices. Copyright Â
Authors: Sara C Keller; Kathryn Dzintars; Lisa A Gorski; Deborah Williams; Sara E Cosgrove Journal: Pharmacotherapy Date: 2018-03-30 Impact factor: 4.705
Authors: Erica H Lescinskas; Barbara W Trautner; Sanjay Saint; John Colozzi; Katherine Evertsz; Vineet Chopra; Sarah L Krein Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2020-03-04 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Jonathan Underwood; Michael Marks; Steve Collins; Sarah Logan; Gabriele Pollara Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Marcia Ryder; Robert A Gunther; Reid A Nishikawa; Marc Stranz; Britt M Meyer; Taylor A Spangler; Albert E Parker; Charles Sylvia Journal: Am J Health Syst Pharm Date: 2020-08-07 Impact factor: 2.637