Safety and Efficacy of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters in Terminally Ill Cancer Patients: Single Institute Experience

Park, Kwonoh; Lim, Hyoung Gun; Hong, Ji Yeon; Song, Hun Ho

doi:10.14475/kjhpc.2014.17.3.179

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, limited data exist regarding the safety and efficacy of PICC in homogenous terminally ill cancer patients [7][8][9]. Our group previously conducted retrospective and prospective studies examining the performance of PICC in terminally ill cancer patients [7,8], demonstrating high insertion success rate (86-100%), low premature removal rate (10-16%), and favorable patient-reported satisfaction (80%). However, these previous studies had limitations to elucidate superiority of the PICC compared with peripheral IV access and appropriate time to insert PICC in terminally ill cancer patients due to the retrospective or single arm design.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety, Efficacy, and Patient Satisfaction with Initial Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters Compared with Usual Intravenous Access in Terminally Ill Cancer Patients: A Randomized Phase II Study

Park

Kim

et al. 2021

Cancer Res Treat

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate whether routine insertion of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) at admission to a hospice-palliative care (HPC) unit is acceptable in terms of safety and efficacy and whether it results in superior patient satisfaction compared to usual intravenous (IV) access.Materials and Methods Terminally ill cancer patients were randomly assigned to two arms: routine PICC access and usual IV access arm. The primary endpoint was IV maintenance success rate, defined as the rate of functional IV maintenance until the intended time (discharge, transfer, or death).Results A total of 66 terminally ill cancer patients were enrolled and randomized to study arms. Among them, 57 patients (routine PICC, 29; usual IV, 28) were analyzed. In the routine PICC arm, mean time to PICC was 0.84 days (range, 0 to 3 days), 27 patients maintained PICC with function until the intended time. In the usual IV arm, 11 patients maintained peripheral IV access until the intended time, and 15 patients underwent PICC insertion. The IV maintenance success rate in the routine PICC arm (27/29, 93.1%) was similar to that in the usual IV arm (26/28, 92.8%, p=0.958). Patient satisfaction at day 5 was better in the routine PICC arm (97%, ‘a little comfort’ or ‘much comfort’) compared with the usual IV arm (21%) (p <0.001). Conclusion Routine PICC insertion in terminally ill cancer patients was comparable in safety and efficacy and resulted in superior satisfaction compared with usual IV access. Thus, routine PICC insertion could be considered at admission to the HPC unit.

show abstract