OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the safety and performance of PowerPICC catheters in a real-world setting. DESIGN: Prospective, observational, multicentre study. SETTING: Nine European countries, involving 14 centres. PARTICIPANTS: General patient population. INTERVENTION: PowerPICC catheter inserted by the clinician as standard of care with routinely collected outcomes followed through device removal or 180 days postinsertion. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES MEASURES: Safety and performance outcomes were assessed for PowerPICC, PowerPICC SOLO 2 and PowerGroshong PICC. The primary safety endpoint was the incidence of symptomatic venous thrombosis (VT), and secondary safety endpoints included phlebitis, extravasation, vessel laceration, vessel perforation local infection, accidental dislodgment and catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI). The primary performance endpoint was the percentage of patients whose PowerPICC device remained in place through the completion of therapy. The secondary performance endpoints included catheter patency, placement success in a single attempt and usability. RESULTS: The enrolled patients (N=451) received either PowerPICC, PowerPICC SOLO 2 or PowerGroshong PICC catheters. Across all devices, 1.6% of patients developed symptomatic VT, and CRBSI occurred in 1.6% of patients. There were no cases of phlebitis or extravasation and only three cases of vein laceration or vein perforation. The catheters showed high success rates in completing therapy (81.8%), maintaining patency (93.9%) and achieving successful placement in a single attempt (90.4%). Clinicians overwhelmingly agreed that both the guidewire and stylet (93.3% and 94.4%, respectively) were easy or very easy to use. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the safety and performance of PowerPICC catheters across diverse settings and patient cohorts in real-world hospital settings across Europe. The findings indicate that these catheters are safe and can be effectively used in the general patient setting and when inserted by a variety of clinicians. The low incidence of complications and high success rates further support the clinical utility of these catheters. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04263649.

Becton Dickinson and Company Franklin Lakes New Jersey USA

Bolzano Central Hospital Bolzano Italy

Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria

Molinette Hospital University of Turin Turin Italy

University Hospital Olomouc Olomouc Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Helm RE, Klausner JD, Klemperer JD, et al. Accepted but unacceptable: peripheral IV catheter failure. J Infus Nurs. 2015;38:189–203. doi: 10.1097/NAN.0000000000000100. PubMed DOI

Carr PJ, Higgins NS, Cooke ML, et al. Vascular access specialist teams for device insertion and prevention of failure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;3:CD011429. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011429.pub2. PubMed DOI PMC

Dychter SS, Gold DA, Carson D, et al. Intravenous therapy: a review of complications and economic considerations of peripheral access. J Infus Nurs. 2012;35:84–91. doi: 10.1097/NAN.0b013e31824237ce. PubMed DOI

Cheung E, Baerlocher MO, Asch M, et al. Venous access: a practical review for 2009. Can Fam Physician. 2009;55:494–6. PubMed PMC

iData Research Vascular access devices market size, share & trends analysis | Europe | 2023-2029 | MedSuite | Includes: implantable port market, port needle market, central venous catheter market, and 10 more. 2023. [3-Mar-2024]. https://idataresearch.com/product/vascular-access-devices-market-europe/ Available. Accessed.

Gorski LA, Hadaway L, Hagle ME, et al. Infusion Therapy Standards of Practice, 8th Edition. J Infus Nurs. 2021;44:S1–224. doi: 10.1097/NAN.0000000000000396. PubMed DOI

Chopra V, Flanders SA, Saint S, et al. The Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC): Results From a Multispecialty Panel Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:S1–40. doi: 10.7326/M15-0744. PubMed DOI

Walker G, Todd A. Nurse-led PICC insertion: is it cost effective? Br J Nurs. 2013;22:S9–15. PubMed

Robinson MK, Mogensen KM, Grudinskas GF, et al. Improved care and reduced costs for patients requiring peripherally inserted central catheters: the role of bedside ultrasound and a dedicated team. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2005;29:374–9. doi: 10.1177/0148607105029005374. PubMed DOI

Cormode DP, Naha PC, Fayad ZA. Nanoparticle contrast agents for computed tomography: a focus on micelles. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2014;9:37–52. doi: 10.1002/cmmi.1551. PubMed DOI PMC

Nance JW, Jr, Henzler T, Meyer M, et al. Optimization of contrast material delivery for dual-energy computed tomography pulmonary angiography in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Invest Radiol. 2012;47:78–84. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e31821a2142. PubMed DOI

Coyle D, Bloomgarden D, Beres R, et al. Power injection of contrast media via peripherally inserted central catheters for CT. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2004;15:809–14. doi: 10.1097/01.RVI.0000128812.20864.EC. PubMed DOI

Campagna S, Gonella S, Berchialla P, et al. A retrospective study of the safety of over 100,000 peripherally-inserted central catheters days for parenteral supportive treatments. Res Nurs Health. 2019;42:198–204. doi: 10.1002/nur.21939. PubMed DOI

Chopra V, Anand S, Hickner A, et al. Risk of venous thromboembolism associated with peripherally inserted central catheters: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2013;382:311–25. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60592-9. PubMed DOI

Greene MT, Flanders SA, Woller SC, et al. The Association Between PICC Use and Venous Thromboembolism in Upper and Lower Extremities. Am J Med. 2015;128:986–93. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.03.028. PubMed DOI

Bahl A, Alsbrooks K, Gala S, et al. Symptomatic Deep Vein Thrombosis Associated With Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters of Different Diameters: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2023;29:10760296221144041. doi: 10.1177/10760296221144041. PubMed DOI PMC

Polderman KH, Girbes ARJ. Central venous catheter use. Part 2: infectious complications. Intensive Care Med. 2002;28:18–28. doi: 10.1007/s00134-001-1156-7. PubMed DOI

Grau D, Clarivet B, Lotthé A, et al. Complications with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) used in hospitalized patients and outpatients: a prospective cohort study. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2017;6:18. doi: 10.1186/s13756-016-0161-0. PubMed DOI PMC

Akhtar N, Lee L. Utilization and Complications of Central Venous Access Devices in Oncology Patients. Curr Oncol. 2021;28:367–77. doi: 10.3390/curroncol28010039. PubMed DOI PMC

González S, Jiménez P, Saavedra P, et al. Five-year outcome of peripherally inserted central catheters in adults: a separated infectious and thrombotic complications analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2021;42:833–41. doi: 10.1017/ice.2020.1300. PubMed DOI

Sato R, Kumai T, Hayashi R, et al. Peripherally inserted central venous catheters provide safe and easy central venous access in patients with head and neck cancer. Int J Pract Otolaryngol. 2021;04:e29–33. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1728747. DOI

Goossens GA, Grumiaux N, Janssens C, et al. SecurAstaP trial: securement with SecurAcath versus StatLock for peripherally inserted central catheters, a randomised open trial. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e016058. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016058. PubMed DOI PMC

Morano SG, Latagliata R, Girmenia C, et al. Catheter-associated bloodstream infections and thrombotic risk in hematologic patients with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) Support Care Cancer. 2015;23:3289–95. doi: 10.1007/s00520-015-2740-7. PubMed DOI

Makary MA, Daniel M. Medical error-the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ. 2016;353:i2139. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i2139. PubMed DOI

Cotogni P, Pittiruti M. Focus on peripherally inserted central catheters in critically ill patients. World J Crit Care Med. 2014;3:80–94. doi: 10.5492/wjccm.v3.i4.80. PubMed DOI PMC

Sharp R, Cummings M, Fielder A, et al. The catheter to vein ratio and rates of symptomatic venous thromboembolism in patients with a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC): a prospective cohort study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015;52:677–85. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2014.12.002. PubMed DOI

Dariushnia SR, Wallace MJ, Siddiqi NH, et al. Quality improvement guidelines for central venous access. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2010;21:976–81. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2010.03.006. PubMed DOI

Racadio JM, Doellman DA, Johnson ND, et al. Pediatric peripherally inserted central catheters: complication rates related to catheter tip location. Pediatrics. 2001;107:E28. doi: 10.1542/peds.107.2.e28. PubMed DOI

Luciani A, Clement O, Halimi P, et al. Catheter-related upper extremity deep venous thrombosis in cancer patients: a prospective study based on Doppler US. Radiology. 2001;220:655–60. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2203001181. PubMed DOI

Petersen J, Delaney JH, Brakstad MT, et al. Silicone venous access devices positioned with their tips high in the superior vena cava are more likely to malfunction. Am J Surg. 1999;178:38–41. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9610(99)00124-5. PubMed DOI

Bidgood C. Improving the patient experience with real-time PICC placement confirmation. Br J Nurs. 2016;25:539–43. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2016.25.10.539. PubMed DOI

Yang RY, Moineddin R, Filipescu D, et al. Increased complexity and complications associated with multiple peripherally inserted central catheter insertions in children: the tip of the iceberg. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2012;23:351–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2011.11.024. PubMed DOI

Kim K, Kim Y, Peck KR. Previous peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) placement as a risk factor for PICC-associated bloodstream infections. Am J Infect Control. 2020;48:1166–70. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2019.12.014. PubMed DOI

Heijink R, Engelfriet P, Rehnberg C, et al. A Window on Geographic Variation in Health Care: Insights from EuroHOPE. Health Econ. 2015;24 Suppl 2:164–77. doi: 10.1002/hec.3287. PubMed DOI

Zobrazit více v PubMed

ClinicalTrials.gov
NCT04263649