Abstract
ABSTRACT 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.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
