A prospective, randomized comparison of three different types of valved and non-valved peripherally inserted central catheters

Journal of Vascular Access

Volumn 15, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 519-523

  Pittiruti, Mauro ^a   Emoli, Alessandro ^b   Porta, Patrizia ^b   Marche, Bruno ^b   DeAngelis, Rosa ^b   Scoppettuolo, Giancarlo ^b  

^a CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

^b CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

Author keywords

Catheter rupture; Central venous catheter; Infection; Occlusion; Peripherally inserted central catheter; Power injectable polyurethane; Thrombosis; Valved catheters

Indexed keywords

LOW MOLECULAR WEIGHT HEPARIN;

ADULT; ARTICLE; ASYMPTOMATIC THROMBOSIS; BLOOD FLOW; BLOOD TRANSFUSION; CATHETER COMPLICATION; CATHETER OCCLUSION; CATHETER REMOVAL; CHEMOTHERAPY; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DIFFICULTY WITH GRAVITY INFUSION; ELECTROCARDIOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTRAVASCULAR RUPTURE; IRREVERSIBLE OCCLUSION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PARTIAL WITHDRAWAL OCCLUSION; PERIPHERALLY INSERTED CENTRAL VENOUS CATHETER; POWER PICC SOLO; PROPICC; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REMOVAL DUE TO RUPTURE; REMOVED FOR OCCLUSION; SYMPTOMATIC THROMBOSIS; THORAX RADIOGRAPHY; THROMBOSIS; TRANSIENT OCCLUSION; ULTRASOUND; XCELA PICC; ADVERSE EFFECTS; AGED; CATHETER-RELATED INFECTIONS; CATHETERIZATION; CENTRAL VENOUS CATHETER; CENTRAL VENOUS CATHETERIZATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEVICE FAILURE; DEVICE REMOVAL; DEVICES; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; INCIDENCE; INDWELLING CATHETER; ITALY; MICROBIOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; RISK FACTOR; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VENOUS THROMBOSIS;

AGED; CATHETER OBSTRUCTION; CATHETER-RELATED INFECTIONS; CATHETERIZATION, CENTRAL VENOUS; CATHETERIZATION, PERIPHERAL; CATHETERS, INDWELLING; CENTRAL VENOUS CATHETERS; DEVICE REMOVAL; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EQUIPMENT FAILURE; FEMALE; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK FACTORS; ROME; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VENOUS THROMBOSIS;

EID: 84925295131     PISSN: 11297298     EISSN: 17246032     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5301/jva.5000280     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Loveday HP, Wilson JA, Pratt RJ, et al. EPIC3: National evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections in NHS hospitals in England. J Hosp Infect. 2014;86(Suppl 1):S1-70.
2. Scoppettuolo G, Pittiruti M. Ultrasound guided placement of peripherally inserted central venous catheters. In: Lumb P, Karakitsos D, eds. Critical Care Ultrasound. Philadelphia, London: Elsevier-Saunders, 2014;89-94.
3. O'Grady NP, Alexander M, Burns LA, et al; Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Am J Infect Control. 2011;39(4)(Suppl 1):S1-S34.
4. Di Giacomo M. Comparison of three peripherally-inserted central catheters: pilot study. Br J Nurs. 2009;18(1): 8-16.
5. Pittiruti M, Brutti A, Celentano D, et al. Clinical experience with power-injectable PICCs in intensive care patients. Crit Care. 2012;16(1):R21.
6. Alport B, Burbridge B, Lim H. Bard PowerPICC Solo2 vs Cook Turbo-Ject: a tale of two PICCs. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2012;63(4):323-328.
7. Johnston AJ, Streater CT, Noorani R, Crofts JL, Del Mundo AB, Parker RA. The effect of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) valve technology on catheter occlusion rates-the 'ELeCTRiC' study. J Vasc Access. 2012;13(4): 421-425.
8. Baiocco GG, da Silva JL. The use of the peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) in the hospital environment. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2010;18(6):1131-1137.
9. Cheong K, Perry D, Karapetis C, Koczwara B. High rate of complications associated with peripherally inserted central venous catheters in patients with solid tumours. Intern Med J. 2004;34(5):234-238.
10. Funk D, Gray J, Plourde PJ. Two-year trends of peripherally inserted central catheter-line complications at a tertiarycare hospital: role of nursing expertise. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2001;22(6):377-379.
11. Barber JM, Booth DM, King JA, Chakraverty S. A nurse led peripherally inserted central catheter line insertion service is effective with radiological support. Clin Radiol. 2002;57(5):352-354.
12. Walshe LJ, Malak SF, Eagan J, Sepkowitz KA. Complication rates among cancer patients with peripherally inserted central catheters. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(15):3276-3281.
13. Hoffer EK, Borsa J, Santulli P, Bloch R, Fontaine AB. Prospective randomized comparison of valved versus nonvalved peripherally inserted central vein catheters. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;173(5):1393-1398.
14. Hoffer EK, Bloch RD, Borsa JJ, Santulli P, Fontaine AB, Francoeur N. Peripherally inserted central catheters with distal versus proximal valves: prospective randomized trial. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2001;12(10):1173-1177.
15. Burns D. The Vanderbilt PICC Service. Program, procedural, and patient outcomes successes. JAVA. 2005;10(4):1-10.
16. Pittiruti M, Scoppettuolo G, Emoli A, et al. Parenteral nutrition through ultrasound-placed PICCs and midline catheters is associated with a low rate of complications: an observational study. Nutr Ther Metab. 2009;27:142-148.
17. Ong CK, Venkatesh SK, Lau GB, Wang SC. Prospective randomized comparative evaluation of proximal valve polyurethane and distal valve silicone peripherally inserted central catheters. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2010;21(8):1191-1196.
18. Miyagaki H, Nakajima K, Hara J, et al. Performance comparison of peripherally inserted central venous catheters in gastrointestinal surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Nutr. 2012;31(1):48-52.
19. Bertoglio S, Solari N, Meszaros P, et al. Efficacy of normal saline versus heparinized saline solution for locking catheters of totally implantable long-term central vascular access devices in adult cancer patients. Cancer Nurs. 2012; 35(4): E35-E42.
20. Goossens GA, Jérôme M, Janssens C, et al. Comparing normal saline versus diluted heparin to lock non-valved totally implantable venous access devices in cancer patients: a randomised, non-inferiority, open trial. Ann Oncol. 2013; 24(7): 1892-1899.