Advantages and disadvantages of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) compared to other central venous lines: A systematic review of the literature

Perceptions of Vascular Access for Intravenous Systemic Therapy and Risk Factors for Lymphedema in Early-Stage Breast Cancer—A Patient Survey

“…Similarly, in our survey, self-reported rates of thrombosis were 4% for patients with a picc and 6% for those with a port, which are again higher than the rates reported in systematic reviews 7,8 .…”

“Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: Our Experience from a Cancer Research Centre”

“…Mechanical complications were seen in 12 % of the patients in the study of Jain SA et al from India. A systemic review of the literature done by Johansson E et al has shown that PICCs have an increased risk towards venous thrombosis, however, evidence supporting any advantage or disadvantage of PICC when compared with other central venous access devices is sparse [12]. Various factors have been described which may contribute to mechanical complications like turbulence, blood flow rate, non-central location of the catheter tip and increasing catheter dwell time [11,13].…”

Thrombosis and Hemostatic Abnormalities in Hematological Malignancies

“…The use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) has increased rapidly in modern medical practice for several reasons, including ease of insertion, perceived safety, and cost-effectiveness compared with other central CVDs. 32 Despite these benefits, PICCs are associated with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) of the arm and PE. 33 A recent meta-analysis by Chopra et al showed that PICCs were associated with greater risk of DVT of the arm than were CVDs.…”