{"title":"成人癌症患者使用隧道式外周置入中心导管与传统 PICC 相比的安全性和有效性。","authors":"Jia Li, Zeyin Hu, Mengna Luo, Zhenming Wu, Xinman Dou, Zhiying Wang, Shuang Yu, Liping Xiao, Jinhua Qiu, Shuxian Yu, Mengyun Chen, Suxiang Lu, Binglian Su, Li Cheng, Yuying Fan, Hui-Ying Qin","doi":"10.1007/s00330-024-10852-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of tunneled peripherally inserted central catheters (T-PICC) vs. conventional PICCs (C-PICC) in adult cancer patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A multicentre randomized controlled trial was conducted between April 2021 and January 2022 in seven hospitals in China. 564 participants were randomly assigned to T-PICC or C-PICC. These data were collected and compared: the baseline characteristics and catheterization-related characteristics, periprocedural complications, and long-term complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five-hundred fifty-three participants (aged, 52.6 ± 12.3 years; female, 39.1%) were ultimately analyzed. No significant differences in periprocedural complications were found between the T-PICC and C-PICC groups (all p > 0.05). Compared with C-PICC, T-PICC significantly reduced the incidence of long-term complications (26.4% vs. 39.9%, p < 0.001). Specifically, reduced complications were found in central line-associated bloodstream infection (1.8% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.04), thrombosis (1.1% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.03), catheter dislodgement (4.7% vs. 10.1%, p = 0.01), non-infectious oozing (17.3% vs. 28.6%, p = 0.002), local infection (3.6% vs. 7.6%, p = 0.04), skin irritation (6.1% vs. 10.9%, p = 0.046), and reduced unplanned catheter removal (2.2% vs. 7.2%, p = 0.005). No significant differences were found between T-PICC and C-PICC regarding catheter occlusion (6.5% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.73) or skin damage (2.2% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.58).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>T-PICC is safe and effectively reduces long-term complications.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance statement: </strong>The tunneled technique is effective in reducing PICC-related long-term complications. Thus, it is recommended for cancer patients at high risk of PICC-related complications.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The registration number on https://www.chictr.org.cn/ is ChiCTR2100044632. The name of the trial registry is \"A multicenter randomized controlled study of clinical use of tunneled vs. non-tunneled PICC\".</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>Cather-related complications are associated with the technique of catheterization. Compared with conventional PICC, tunneled PICC reduced catheter-related long-term complications. Tunneled PICC placement provides an alternative catheterization method for cancer patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":12076,"journal":{"name":"European Radiology","volume":" ","pages":"7776-7785"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Safety and effectiveness of tunneled peripherally inserted central catheters versus conventional PICC in adult cancer patients.\",\"authors\":\"Jia Li, Zeyin Hu, Mengna Luo, Zhenming Wu, Xinman Dou, Zhiying Wang, Shuang Yu, Liping Xiao, Jinhua Qiu, Shuxian Yu, Mengyun Chen, Suxiang Lu, Binglian Su, Li Cheng, Yuying Fan, Hui-Ying Qin\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00330-024-10852-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of tunneled peripherally inserted central catheters (T-PICC) vs. conventional PICCs (C-PICC) in adult cancer patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A multicentre randomized controlled trial was conducted between April 2021 and January 2022 in seven hospitals in China. 564 participants were randomly assigned to T-PICC or C-PICC. These data were collected and compared: the baseline characteristics and catheterization-related characteristics, periprocedural complications, and long-term complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five-hundred fifty-three participants (aged, 52.6 ± 12.3 years; female, 39.1%) were ultimately analyzed. No significant differences in periprocedural complications were found between the T-PICC and C-PICC groups (all p > 0.05). Compared with C-PICC, T-PICC significantly reduced the incidence of long-term complications (26.4% vs. 39.9%, p < 0.001). Specifically, reduced complications were found in central line-associated bloodstream infection (1.8% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.04), thrombosis (1.1% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.03), catheter dislodgement (4.7% vs. 10.1%, p = 0.01), non-infectious oozing (17.3% vs. 28.6%, p = 0.002), local infection (3.6% vs. 7.6%, p = 0.04), skin irritation (6.1% vs. 10.9%, p = 0.046), and reduced unplanned catheter removal (2.2% vs. 7.2%, p = 0.005). No significant differences were found between T-PICC and C-PICC regarding catheter occlusion (6.5% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.73) or skin damage (2.2% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.58).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>T-PICC is safe and effectively reduces long-term complications.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance statement: </strong>The tunneled technique is effective in reducing PICC-related long-term complications. Thus, it is recommended for cancer patients at high risk of PICC-related complications.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The registration number on https://www.chictr.org.cn/ is ChiCTR2100044632. The name of the trial registry is \\\"A multicenter randomized controlled study of clinical use of tunneled vs. non-tunneled PICC\\\".</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>Cather-related complications are associated with the technique of catheterization. Compared with conventional PICC, tunneled PICC reduced catheter-related long-term complications. Tunneled PICC placement provides an alternative catheterization method for cancer patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12076,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Radiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"7776-7785\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-10852-y\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-10852-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Safety and effectiveness of tunneled peripherally inserted central catheters versus conventional PICC in adult cancer patients.
Objectives: This study aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of tunneled peripherally inserted central catheters (T-PICC) vs. conventional PICCs (C-PICC) in adult cancer patients.
Methods: A multicentre randomized controlled trial was conducted between April 2021 and January 2022 in seven hospitals in China. 564 participants were randomly assigned to T-PICC or C-PICC. These data were collected and compared: the baseline characteristics and catheterization-related characteristics, periprocedural complications, and long-term complications.
Results: Five-hundred fifty-three participants (aged, 52.6 ± 12.3 years; female, 39.1%) were ultimately analyzed. No significant differences in periprocedural complications were found between the T-PICC and C-PICC groups (all p > 0.05). Compared with C-PICC, T-PICC significantly reduced the incidence of long-term complications (26.4% vs. 39.9%, p < 0.001). Specifically, reduced complications were found in central line-associated bloodstream infection (1.8% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.04), thrombosis (1.1% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.03), catheter dislodgement (4.7% vs. 10.1%, p = 0.01), non-infectious oozing (17.3% vs. 28.6%, p = 0.002), local infection (3.6% vs. 7.6%, p = 0.04), skin irritation (6.1% vs. 10.9%, p = 0.046), and reduced unplanned catheter removal (2.2% vs. 7.2%, p = 0.005). No significant differences were found between T-PICC and C-PICC regarding catheter occlusion (6.5% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.73) or skin damage (2.2% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.58).
Conclusion: T-PICC is safe and effectively reduces long-term complications.
Clinical relevance statement: The tunneled technique is effective in reducing PICC-related long-term complications. Thus, it is recommended for cancer patients at high risk of PICC-related complications.
Trial registration: The registration number on https://www.chictr.org.cn/ is ChiCTR2100044632. The name of the trial registry is "A multicenter randomized controlled study of clinical use of tunneled vs. non-tunneled PICC".
Key points: Cather-related complications are associated with the technique of catheterization. Compared with conventional PICC, tunneled PICC reduced catheter-related long-term complications. Tunneled PICC placement provides an alternative catheterization method for cancer patients.
期刊介绍:
European Radiology (ER) continuously updates scientific knowledge in radiology by publication of strong original articles and state-of-the-art reviews written by leading radiologists. A well balanced combination of review articles, original papers, short communications from European radiological congresses and information on society matters makes ER an indispensable source for current information in this field.
This is the Journal of the European Society of Radiology, and the official journal of a number of societies.
From 2004-2008 supplements to European Radiology were published under its companion, European Radiology Supplements, ISSN 1613-3749.