Advanced

Advantages and disadvantages of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) compared to other central venous lines: A systematic review of the literature

Johansson, Eva ; Hammarskjold, Fredrik ; Lundberg, Dag LU and Arnlind, Marianne Heibert (2013) In Acta Oncologica 52(5). p.886-892
Abstract
Background. The use of central venous lines carries a significant risk for serious complications and high economic costs. Lately, the peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC) has gained in popularity due to presumed advantages over other central venous lines. The aim of this systematic literature review was to identify scientific evidence justifying the use of PICC. Material and methods. The literature review was performed according to the principles of Cochrane Collaboration. The electronic literature search included common databases up to March 2011. Only those studies rated as high or moderate quality were used for grading of evidence and conclusions. Results. The search resulted in 827 abstracts, 48 articles were read in... (More)
Background. The use of central venous lines carries a significant risk for serious complications and high economic costs. Lately, the peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC) has gained in popularity due to presumed advantages over other central venous lines. The aim of this systematic literature review was to identify scientific evidence justifying the use of PICC. Material and methods. The literature review was performed according to the principles of Cochrane Collaboration. The electronic literature search included common databases up to March 2011. Only those studies rated as high or moderate quality were used for grading of evidence and conclusions. Results. The search resulted in 827 abstracts, 48 articles were read in full text, and 11 met the inclusion criteria. None of the articles was classified as high quality and two had moderate quality. The results of these two studies indicate that PICC increases the risk for deep venous thrombosis (DVT), but decreases the risk for catheter occlusion. The quality of scientific evidence behind these conclusions, however, was limited. Due to the lack of studies with sufficiently high quality, questions such as early complications, patient satisfaction and costs could not be answered. Discussion. We conclude that although PICCs are frequently used in oncology, scientific evidence supporting any advantage or disadvantage of PICC when comparing PICC with traditional central venous lines is limited, apart from a tendency towards increased risk for DVT and a decreased risk for catheter occlusion with PICC. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; ; and
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Acta Oncologica
volume
52
issue
5
pages
886 - 892
publisher
Taylor & Francis
external identifiers
  • wos:000318655300002
  • scopus:84877347910
  • pmid:23472835
ISSN
1651-226X
DOI
10.3109/0284186X.2013.773072
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
3ba00150-7ef5-4f79-a8d8-355a7361bb9d (old id 3815246)
date added to LUP
2016-04-01 14:10:00
date last changed
2020-09-16 02:18:48
@article{3ba00150-7ef5-4f79-a8d8-355a7361bb9d,
  abstract     = {Background. The use of central venous lines carries a significant risk for serious complications and high economic costs. Lately, the peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC) has gained in popularity due to presumed advantages over other central venous lines. The aim of this systematic literature review was to identify scientific evidence justifying the use of PICC. Material and methods. The literature review was performed according to the principles of Cochrane Collaboration. The electronic literature search included common databases up to March 2011. Only those studies rated as high or moderate quality were used for grading of evidence and conclusions. Results. The search resulted in 827 abstracts, 48 articles were read in full text, and 11 met the inclusion criteria. None of the articles was classified as high quality and two had moderate quality. The results of these two studies indicate that PICC increases the risk for deep venous thrombosis (DVT), but decreases the risk for catheter occlusion. The quality of scientific evidence behind these conclusions, however, was limited. Due to the lack of studies with sufficiently high quality, questions such as early complications, patient satisfaction and costs could not be answered. Discussion. We conclude that although PICCs are frequently used in oncology, scientific evidence supporting any advantage or disadvantage of PICC when comparing PICC with traditional central venous lines is limited, apart from a tendency towards increased risk for DVT and a decreased risk for catheter occlusion with PICC.},
  author       = {Johansson, Eva and Hammarskjold, Fredrik and Lundberg, Dag and Arnlind, Marianne Heibert},
  issn         = {1651-226X},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {5},
  pages        = {886--892},
  publisher    = {Taylor & Francis},
  series       = {Acta Oncologica},
  title        = {Advantages and disadvantages of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) compared to other central venous lines: A systematic review of the literature},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/0284186X.2013.773072},
  doi          = {10.3109/0284186X.2013.773072},
  volume       = {52},
  year         = {2013},
}