Comparison of outcomes from tunnelled femorally inserted central catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters: a propensity score-matched cohort study

ObjectivesTo 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.DesignA propensity-score matched cohort study.SettingA 980-bed tertiary...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BMJ open 2024-05, Vol.14 (5), p.e081749-e081749
Hauptverfasser: McManus, Craig, Mifflin, Nicholas, Rivera, Renz, Vause, Sophie, Tran, Ton, Ostroff, Matthew, Harrowell, Lorenza, Frost, Steven, Alexandrou, Evan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:ObjectivesTo 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.DesignA propensity-score matched cohort study.SettingA 980-bed tertiary referral hospital in South West Sydney, Australia.ParticipantsIn-patients referred to the hospital central venous access service for the insertion of a central venous access device.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe 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).ResultsThe 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).ConclusionThere 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.
ISSN:2044-6055
2044-6055
DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-081749