Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 27, 2025
Utilizing Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock
Published on: June 12, 2021
Complications after peripherally inserted central catheter versus central venous catheter implantation in intensive
Toshiaki Takahashi1, Kojiro Morita2, Kazuaki Uda3
1Department of Gerontological Nursing/Wound Care Management, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Background:
It remains unclear whether peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are superior to central venous catheters (CVCs); therefore, we compared post-implantation complications between CVC and PICC groups.
Research Design And Methods:
Patients who received CVCs or PICCs between April 2010 and March 2018 were identified from the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database, a national inpatient database in Japan. The outcomes of interest included catheter infection, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and phlebitis. Propensity score overlap weighting was used to balance patient backgrounds. Outcomes were compared using logistic regression analyses.
Results:
We identified 164,185 eligible patients, including 161,605 (98.4%) and 2,580 (1.6%) in the CVC and PICC groups, respectively. The PICC group was more likely to have overall complications (odds ratio [OR], 1.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32-2.19), pulmonary embolism (OR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.38-3.89), deep vein thrombosis (OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.16-2.99), and phlebitis (OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.27-2.32) than the CVC group. There was no significant intergroup difference in catheter infection (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.39-3.04).
Conclusions:
Patients with PICCs had a significantly greater incidence of complications than did those with CVCs. Further research is necessary to explore the factors contributing to these complications.
