• Manuela Bonizzoli, Stefano Batacchi, Giovanni Cianchi, Giovanni Zagli, Francesco Lapi, Valentina Tucci, Giacomo Martini, Simona Di Valvasone, and Adriano Peris.
• Anesthesia and Intensive Care Unit of Emergency Department, Careggi Teaching Hospital, Viale Morgagni 85, 50134 Florence, Italy.
• Intensive Care Med. 2011 Feb 1;37(2):284-9.

BackgroundPeripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) have been proposed as an alternative to central venous catheters (CVC). The aim of this study was to determine the thrombosis rate in relation to PICC placement in patients discharged from the intensive care unit (ICU).MethodsData of patients admitted to the ICU (Careggi Teaching Hospital, Florence, Italy; January-August 2008) and discharged with a central venous device were sequentially studied. During the first 4 months, CVCs were used (CVC group), whereas during the last 4 months, PICCs were used (PICC group). Demographic/clinical and catheter-related data were collected. Intensivists performed Doppler examination at ICU discharge and 7, 15, and 30 days after placement.ResultsData of 239 patients were analyzed (125 of CVC group, 114 of PICC group). A total of 2,747 CVC-days and 4,024 PICC-days of observation were included. Patient characteristics were comparable between groups. Patients with PICC had a significantly higher incidence rate of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) than patients with CVC (27.2 vs. 9.6%, P = 0.0012). The rate of DVT/1,000 catheter days was 4.4 for CVCs and 7.7 for PICCs. Eighty percent of DVTs occurred within 2 weeks after insertion. Binary logistic analysis showed a two-fold increased risk for women and a three-fold increased risk when using the left basilic vein in the PICC group.ConclusionsIn our post-critically ill population, PICCs were associated with a higher rate of DVT complications than CVCs. Routine ultrasound surveillance for the first 2 weeks after patient discharge from the ICU with a PICC and preferential use of CVC for these patients may be warranted.

20 keywords...

hide…