Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 5, 2025
A Protocol to Set Up Needle-Free Connector with Positive Displacement on Central Venous Catheter in Intensive Care Unit
Published on: July 13, 2019
Central Venous Catheters versus Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: A Comparison of Indwelling Time Resulting in
Vassiliki C Pitiriga1, John Bakalis2, Elsa Campos2
1Department of Microbiology, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 75 Mikras Asias Street, 11527 Athens, Greece.
Background:
The use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) as an alternative to central venous catheters (CVCs) has steadily risen over the last two decades. However, there is an ongoing debate regarding research evidence that supports any clear advantages or disadvantages of them compared to traditional central venous lines. The present study was conducted to compare the indwelling time of CVC and PICC placements leading to microbial colonization by multidrug-resistant microorganisms (MDROs) in critically ill patients.
Methods:
A single-center retrospective descriptive study was performed that reviewed the medical records of critically ill patients with colonized CVCs and PICCs who were hospitalized during a 24-month period (May 2019-May 2021). To evaluate the association between indwelling time of catheter placement and colonization rates, events were categorized into three groups, each representing a one-week time interval of catheter indwelling time: group 1: ≤7 days, group 2: 8-14 days, and group 3: >14 days.
Results:
A total of 207 hospitalized patients with colonized PICCs or CVCs were included in the study. Of these, 144 (69.5%) had a CVC placement and 63 (30.5%) had a PICC placement. The overall colonization rate (per 1.000 catheter/days) was 14.73 in the CVC and 5.67 in the PICC cohort (p = 0.003). In the group of PICCs, 12/63 (19%) of the pathogens were MDROs and 51/63 (81%) were non-MDROs, while in the group of CVCs, 86/144 (59.7%) were MDROs and 58/144 (40.3%) were non-MDROs (p < 0.001). The colonization rate in the CVC cohort, was 6.98 for group 1, 21.57 for group 2, and 21.6 for group 3 (p = 0.019). The colonization rate of MDROs was 3.27 for group 1, 14.47 for group 2, and 12.96 for group 3 (p = 0.025). Regarding the PICC cohort, the colonization rate was 1.49 for group 1, 3.19 for group 2, and 8.99 for group 3 (p = 0.047). No significant difference existed between the three groups in terms of MDRO pathogens, with the colonization rate being 0 for group 1, 0.8 for group 2, and 1.69 for group 3 (p = 0.78). Within the CVC cohort, the most common isolated microorganism was MDR Acinetobacter baumannii (n = 44; 30.6%), followed by MDR Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 27; 18.7%). In the PICC cohort, the predominant isolated microorganism was Candida non-albicans (n = 15; 23.8%), followed by Candida albicans, coagulase-negative staphylococci, and MDR Klebsiella pneumoniae in equal numbers (n = 6; 9.5%).
Conclusions:
Our findings show that while the indwelling time of PICC placement was longer compared to CVCs, its colonization rate was considerably lower. Furthermore, high colonization rates by microorganisms, especially MDROs, arose later during catheterization in PICCs compared to CVCs, suggesting that in terms of vascular infections, PICCs may be a safer alternative to conventional CVCs for long-term intravenous access.
