Safety, risk of complications and the functional feasibility among different kinds of central venous access are still a matter of debate.
Not many clinical trials have reported a comparison of complications and patency of CVCs versus Peripherally Inserted Catheters (PICC)
as central venous access for indoor patients with advanced gastrointestinal disorder. The aim of the present study was to compare CVCs
and PICCs regarding function, complications and convenience in a controlled clinical study on patients aimed for oncology surgery aimed
for cure.Distributions of patients were comparable. Malignant diagnoses were significantly higher among CVC-patients. CVCs and PICCs
were used for treatment during equal number of days, without any significant complication rates and with comparable number of days
on antibiotics and other potent drugs. The overall cumulative hazard (risk) for treatment interruptions, due to either full-fi lled clinical
indications or due to any complication among the subgroups of patients did not differ.
Central Venous Catheter and Peripheral Inserted Central Venous Catheter, for central venous access, did not differ among
consecutive unselected patients with serious gastro-intestinal disorders.
METHODS: Patients older than 18 years and hospitalized for treatment with
need of central venous lines were included during 2014-2015 at
Sahlgrenska University Hospital in the West Region of Sweden, in a
Center for Upper Gastrointestinal cancer surgery. Study end-points
were patency, function, and complication requiring catheter removal,
thrombophlebitis, pneumo- or haemothorax. Anaesthesiologists performed all CVC insertions. PICCs were inserted by a registered
nurse or anesthesiologists depending on personal competence and
preferences. Th e study protocol followed all patients, where baselinedata, catheter days, patient experience and complications were
registered during hospital stay and signed for validity.
