TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of outcomes from tunnelled femorally inserted central catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters
T2 - a propensity score-matched cohort study
AU - McManus, Craig
AU - Mifflin, Nicholas
AU - Rivera, Renz
AU - Vause, Sophie
AU - Tran, Ton
AU - Ostroff, Matthew
AU - Harrowell, Lorenza
AU - Frost, Steven
AU - Alexandrou, Evan
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 Author(s) (or their employer(s)).
PY - 2024/5/17
Y1 - 2024/5/17
N2 - Objectives To compare catheter-related outcomes of individuals who received a tunnelled femorally inserted central catheter (tFICC) with those who received a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) in the upper extremities. Design A propensity-score matched cohort study. Setting A 980-bed tertiary referral hospital in South West Sydney, Australia. Participants In-patients referred to the hospital central venous access service for the insertion of a central venous access device. Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of all-cause catheter failure. Secondary outcomes included the rates of catheters removed because of suspected or confirmed catheter-associated infection, catheter dwell and confirmed upper or lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Results The overall rate of all-cause catheter failure in the matched tFICC and PICC cohort was 2.4/1000 catheter days (95% CI 1.1 to 4.4) and 3.0/1000 catheter days (95% CI 2.3 to 3.9), respectively, and when compared, no difference was observed (difference -0.63/1000 catheter days, 95% CI -2.32 to 1.06). We found no differences in catheter dwell (mean difference of 14.2 days, 95% CI -6.6 to 35.0, p=0.910); or in the cumulative probability of failure between the two groups within the first month of dwell (p=0.358). No significant differences were observed in the rate of catheters requiring removal for confirmed central line-associated bloodstream infection (difference 0.13/1000 catheter day, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.63, p=0.896). Similarly, no significant differences were found between the groups for confirmed catheter-related DVT (difference -0.11 per 1000 catheter days, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.04, p=1.00). Conclusion There were no differences in catheter-related outcomes between the matched cohort of tFICC and PICC patients, suggesting that tFICCs are a possible alternative for vascular access when the veins of the upper extremities or thoracic region are not viable for catheterisation.
AB - Objectives To compare catheter-related outcomes of individuals who received a tunnelled femorally inserted central catheter (tFICC) with those who received a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) in the upper extremities. Design A propensity-score matched cohort study. Setting A 980-bed tertiary referral hospital in South West Sydney, Australia. Participants In-patients referred to the hospital central venous access service for the insertion of a central venous access device. Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of all-cause catheter failure. Secondary outcomes included the rates of catheters removed because of suspected or confirmed catheter-associated infection, catheter dwell and confirmed upper or lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Results The overall rate of all-cause catheter failure in the matched tFICC and PICC cohort was 2.4/1000 catheter days (95% CI 1.1 to 4.4) and 3.0/1000 catheter days (95% CI 2.3 to 3.9), respectively, and when compared, no difference was observed (difference -0.63/1000 catheter days, 95% CI -2.32 to 1.06). We found no differences in catheter dwell (mean difference of 14.2 days, 95% CI -6.6 to 35.0, p=0.910); or in the cumulative probability of failure between the two groups within the first month of dwell (p=0.358). No significant differences were observed in the rate of catheters requiring removal for confirmed central line-associated bloodstream infection (difference 0.13/1000 catheter day, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.63, p=0.896). Similarly, no significant differences were found between the groups for confirmed catheter-related DVT (difference -0.11 per 1000 catheter days, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.04, p=1.00). Conclusion There were no differences in catheter-related outcomes between the matched cohort of tFICC and PICC patients, suggesting that tFICCs are a possible alternative for vascular access when the veins of the upper extremities or thoracic region are not viable for catheterisation.
KW - infection control
KW - intensive & critical care
KW - internal medicine
KW - vascular medicine
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85193576918&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-081749
DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-081749
M3 - Article
C2 - 38760049
AN - SCOPUS:85193576918
SN - 2044-6055
VL - 14
JO - BMJ Open
JF - BMJ Open
IS - 5
M1 - e081749
ER -