Safety and Efficacy of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Placement by Surgical Intensivist–Led Vascular Access Team
- Author:
Byunghyuk YU
1
;
Jihoon HONG
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- From:Vascular Specialist International 2022;38(4):41-
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
Purpose:This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of bedside peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) placement under ultrasonography (USG) guidance in the general ward by a surgical intensivist–led vascular access team versus that of PICC placement in the intensive care unit (ICU) or fluoroscopy unit.
Materials and Methods:We conducted this retrospective study of all patients who underwent PICC placement between March 2021 and May 2022. Clinical, periprocedural, and outcome data were compared for PICC placement in the ICU, general ward, and fluoroscopy unit groups, respectively.
Results:A total of 354 PICC placements were made in 301 patients. Among them, USG-guided PICC placement was performed in 103 and 147 cases in the ICU and general ward, respectively, while fluoroscopy-guided PICC placement was performed in 104 cases. USG-guided PICC placement more often required post-procedural catheter repositioning than fluoroscopy-guided PICC placement (P<0.001), but there was no significant difference in any adverse events (P=0.796). In addition, USG-guided PICC placement in the general ward was more efficient than fluoroscopy-guided PICC placement (0.73 days vs. 5.73 days, respectively;P<0.001). In the multivariate analysis, previous PICC placement within 6 months was an independent risk factor for a PICC-associated bloodstream infection (odds ratio, 2.835; 95% confidence interval, 1.143-7.034; P=0.025).
Conclusion:USG-guided PICC placement in the general ward by a surgical intensivist–led vascular access team has comparable safety and efficiency to that of USG-guided PICC placement in the ICU or fluoroscopy-guided PICC placement.
