• J F Cardella, P S Fox, and J B Lawler.
• Department of Radiology, Penn State University College of Medicine, Milton S Hershey Medical Center, Hershey 17033.
• J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1993 Sep 1;4(5):653-60.

PurposeThis study examines the difference in success between bedside insertions of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) performed by clinicians and fluoroscopically assisted insertions by cardiovascular/interventional (CV/I) radiologists.Patients And MaterialsFour hundred four PICCs were inserted in 305 patients, with a mean age of 48 years (range, 8-78 years), who required intermediate and long-term central venous access. One hundred fifty patients underwent bedside insertion, and 155 patients underwent fluoroscopically assisted insertion. Dual- and single-lumen PICC devices were used depending on venous access needs.ResultsCentral venous access with the PICC device was achieved in 111 (74%) of 150 bedside insertions and in 153 (98.7%) of 155 fluoroscopic insertions. Average PICC dwell time was 72.7 days (range, 2-307 days). Of the 305 patients, 244 (73.4%) completed planned therapy with a single catheter, 54 patients (17.7%) required two PICCs at the same site, 15 patients (4.9%) required three or more PICCs at the same site, and 12 patients (4.0%) required PICC replacement to a different site to complete therapy. Complications with bedside insertions included upper extremity thrombophlebitis (n = 4), entry site infection (n = 6), and PICC shear with migration (n = 2), while complications with fluoroscopic insertions included entry site infection (n = 2).ConclusionBecause of the far greater placement success achieved by CV/I radiologists, all PICCs are now inserted fluoroscopically. The devices complete favorably with surgically placed central catheters with regard to service interval, morbidity, and cost. Use of fluoroscopic techniques enables placement of these devices in virtually all patients, even those with seemingly no peripheral veins.

16 keywords...

hide…