J Cornillon1, J A Martignoles2, E Tavernier-Tardy2, M Gire2, P Martinez2, C Tranchan2, A Vallard3, K Augeul-Meunier2, B Hacquard4, D Guyotat2. 1. Department of Clinical Hematology, Institut de Cancérologie Lucien Neuwirth, 42171 St, Priest en Jarez, France. Jerome.cornillon@icloire.fr. 2. Department of Clinical Hematology, Institut de Cancérologie Lucien Neuwirth, 42171 St, Priest en Jarez, France. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie Lucien Neuwirth, 42 St, Etienne, France. 4. Department of Interventional Radiology, Institut de Cancérologie Lucien Neuwirth, 42-St, Etienne, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Long-term catheters are often necessary for outpatient care after an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), However, there is paucity of data on the use of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) in post-HSCT setting. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated the systematic use of PICC in 37 consecutive patients returning home after HSCT. RESULTS: In 6 out of 37 patients, the PICC was exclusively used for weekly blood controls. In 31 patients, the PICC line was used at home for hydration (18), antibiotics (3), intravenous human Ig (7), transfusions (10), extracorporeal photopheresis (3), chemotherapy (2), artificial nutrition (1), and/or palliative care (1). PICC complications were reported in ten patients (27%), causing eight PICC removals. At the end of the study, 35 patients had their PICC removed. PICCs were used with a median duration of 67 days. Reasons for removal were that PICC was not considered to be useful any longer (16), suspicion of infection (inflammation without documentation) (5) or infection (2), patient's wish (4), death (4), accidental withdrawal (2), puncture site bleeding (1), and catheter change due to extracorporeal photopheresis (1). Three venous thromboses were reported (8%), requesting one PICC removal because of associated infection. In other cases, an antithrombotic treatment was initiated. CONCLUSIONS: Although the number of patients included in the study was small, our results suggest that PICC is a safe long-term venous access for home care after HSCT.
PURPOSE: Long-term catheters are often necessary for outpatient care after an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), However, there is paucity of data on the use of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) in post-HSCT setting. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated the systematic use of PICC in 37 consecutive patients returning home after HSCT. RESULTS: In 6 out of 37 patients, the PICC was exclusively used for weekly blood controls. In 31 patients, the PICC line was used at home for hydration (18), antibiotics (3), intravenous human Ig (7), transfusions (10), extracorporeal photopheresis (3), chemotherapy (2), artificial nutrition (1), and/or palliative care (1). PICC complications were reported in ten patients (27%), causing eight PICC removals. At the end of the study, 35 patients had their PICC removed. PICCs were used with a median duration of 67 days. Reasons for removal were that PICC was not considered to be useful any longer (16), suspicion of infection (inflammation without documentation) (5) or infection (2), patient's wish (4), death (4), accidental withdrawal (2), puncture site bleeding (1), and catheter change due to extracorporeal photopheresis (1). Three venous thromboses were reported (8%), requesting one PICC removal because of associated infection. In other cases, an antithrombotic treatment was initiated. CONCLUSIONS: Although the number of patients included in the study was small, our results suggest that PICC is a safe long-term venous access for home care after HSCT.
Entities:
Keywords:
Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; Home care; PICC line
Authors: Leonard A Mermel; Michael Allon; Emilio Bouza; Donald E Craven; Patricia Flynn; Naomi P O'Grady; Issam I Raad; Bart J A Rijnders; Robert J Sherertz; David K Warren Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2009-07-01 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Natalia Curto-García; Julio García-Suárez; Marta Callejas Chavarria; Juan José Gil Fernández; Yolanda Martín Guerrero; Elena Magro Mazo; Shelly Marcellini Antonio; Luis Miguel Juárez; Isabel Gutierrez; Juan José Arranz; Irene Montalvo; Carmen Elvira; Pilar Domínguez; María Teresa Díaz; Carmen Burgaleta Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-05-03 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Line Dahlstrøm Christensen; Mette Holst; Laura Fuglsang Bech; Lotte Drustrup; Louis Nygaard; Anders Skallerup; Henrik Højgaard Rasmussen; Lars Vinter-Jensen Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2015-07-28 Impact factor: 7.324
Authors: Charles A Schiffer; Pamela B Mangu; James C Wade; Dawn Camp-Sorrell; Diane G Cope; Bassel F El-Rayes; Mark Gorman; Jennifer Ligibel; Paul Mansfield; Mark Levine Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-03-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Priya Sriskandarajah; Katharine Webb; David Chisholm; Ravi Raobaikady; Kim Davis; Natalie Pepper; Mark E Ethell; Mike N Potter; Bronwen E Shaw Journal: Thromb J Date: 2015-06-25
Authors: Mohamed Ali Ugas; Hyongyu Cho; Gregory M Trilling; Zainab Tahir; Humaera Farrukh Raja; Sami Ramadan; Waseem Jerjes; Peter V Giannoudis Journal: Ann Surg Innov Res Date: 2012-09-04
Authors: Simon Bessis; Nadim Cassir; Line Meddeb; Anne Bonnet Remacle; Jérôme Soussan; Vincent Vidal; Pierre-Edouard Fournier; Florence Fenollar; Didier Raoult; Philippe Brouqui Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 1.817