Randomized controlled trial of peripherally inserted central catheters vs. peripheral catheters for middle duration in-hospital intravenous therapy.

Détails

ID Serval
serval:BIB_73F5B552EF34
Type
Article: article d'un périodique ou d'un magazine.
Collection
Publications
Titre
Randomized controlled trial of peripherally inserted central catheters vs. peripheral catheters for middle duration in-hospital intravenous therapy.
Périodique
Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis
Auteur(s)
Periard D., Monney P., Waeber G., Zurkinden C., Mazzolai L., Hayoz D., Doenz F., Zanetti G., Wasserfallen J.B., Denys A.
ISSN
1538-7836
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
2008
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
6
Numéro
8
Pages
1281-1288
Langue
anglais
Notes
Publication types: Comparative Study ; Journal Article ; Randomized Controlled Trial
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Intravenous (i.v.) therapy may be associated with important catheter-related morbidity and discomfort. The safety, efficacy, comfort, and cost-effectiveness of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) were compared to peripheral catheters (PCs) in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Hospitalized patients requiring i.v. therapy >or= five days were randomized 1:1 to PICC or PC. Outcomes were incidence of major complications, minor complications, efficacy of catheters, patient satisfaction, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: 60 patients were included. Major complications were observed in 22.6% of patients in the PICC group [six deep venous thrombosis (DVT), one insertion-site infection] and 3.4% of patients in the PC group [one DVT; risk ratio (RR) 6.6; P = 0.03]. Superficial venous thrombosis (SVT) occurred in 29.0% of patients in the PICC group and 37.9% of patients in the PC group (RR 0.60; P = 0.20). Patients in the PICC group required 1.16 catheters on average during the study period, compared with 1.97 in the PC group (P < 0.04). The mean number of venipunctures (catheter insertion and blood sampling) was 1.36 in the PICC group vs. 8.25 in the PC group (P < 0.001). Intravenous drug administration was considered very or quite satisfying by 96.8% of the patients in the PICC group, and 79.3% in the PC group. Insertion and maintenance mean cost was 690 US$ for PICC and 237 US$ for PC. DISCUSSION: PICC is efficient and satisfying for hospitalized patients requiring i.v. therapy >or= five days. However, the risk of DVT, mostly asymptomatic, appears higher than previously reported, and should be considered before using a PICC.
Mots-clé
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Catheterization, Central Venous, Catheterization, Peripheral, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Female, Hospitalization, Humans, Infection, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Satisfaction, Safety, Time Factors, Treatment Outcome, Venous Thrombosis
Pubmed
Web of science
Création de la notice
17/11/2008 9:57
Dernière modification de la notice
03/03/2018 18:20
Données d'usage