• Seiya Inoue, Takahiro Yoshida, Takeshi Nishino, Masakazu Goto, Kouhei Nishioka, Keisuke Fujimoto, Mariko Aoyama, Daisuke Matsumoto, Hiromitsu Takizawa, and Akira Tangoku.
• Department of Thoracic, Endocrine Surgery and Oncology, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Tokushima University Graduate School, Tokushima, Japan.
• J. Med. Invest. 2020 Jan 1; 67 (3.4): 298-303.

Abstract Introduction : Central venous catheter (CVC) use is essential for treating esophageal cancer. Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) are commonly used recently for improved patient comfort and safety. We compared centrally inserted central catheters (CICC) and PICC insertions and examined their safety. Methods : We retrospectively investigated complications at the catheter insertion and post-insertion for 199 patients' esophageal cancer treatment (CICC : 45, PICC : 154) from 2013 to 2018. In addition, we summarized the results of catheter tip culture. Results : No serious complications occurred at the catheter insertion in either group. The rate of complications at catheter insertion was 5.8% for PICC and 6.7% for CICC patients. Post-insertion complications were observed in 6.5% and 11.1% of patients with PICC and CICC, respectively, and this difference was not significant. The incidence of catheter-related blood stream infection (CRBSI) was significantly lower in PICC than CICC patients (0.3 vs. 1.8 / 1,000 catheter-days ; p = 0.029). Catheter-related thrombosis was observed in PICC : 0.5 and CICC : 0.6, and occlusion due to blood flow reversal was observed in PICC : 0.5 and CICC : 0.6. Conclusion : PICCs are safer and more effective than CICCs for the treatment of esophageal cancer, and reduce the incidence of CRBSI. We hope to standardize the insertion procedures, conventionalize techniques, and establish training systems. J. Med. Invest. 67 : 298-303, August, 2020.

22 keywords...

hide…