Ek. Hoffer et al., Prospective randomized comparison of valved versus nonvalved peripherally inserted central vein catheters, AM J ROENTG, 173(5), 1999, pp. 1393-1398
Citations number
21
Categorie Soggetti
Radiology ,Nuclear Medicine & Imaging","Medical Research Diagnosis & Treatment
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether a valved perip
herally inserted central catheter (PICC) design would result in a lower inc
idence of occlusion, infection, and malfunction than a clamped catheter.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Three hundred sixty-two study patients (233 men, 129
women; mean age, 44 years) were randomized to receive a clamped (n = 182) o
r valved (n = 180) 5-French single-lumen PICC. Catheters were placed under
fluoroscopic (n = 331) or sonographic guidance (n = 31). The valved PICC wa
s flushed with saline solution, and the clamped PICC was flushed with a hep
arin-saline solution. All patients were prospectively followed up at least
weekly for catheter status and complications.
RESULTS. Percutaneous placement with the catheter tip in the central veins
was successful in 99% of patients. Mean dwell time was 34 days. Twenty-six
occlusive or infectious complications occurred in the clamped catheter grou
p and 12 in the valved catheter group (p = .02). The clamped and valved cat
heter groups had 13 and five occlusions, respectively (p = .06), and 12 and
five catheter-related blood stream infections, respectively (p = .09). Mos
t occlusions (68%) were treated successfully with urokinase, and site infec
tion or sepsis was treated by catheter removal.
CONCLUSION. We found a statistically significant difference in the complica
tion rate for the valved PICC compared with the clamped PICC. With the valv
ed PICC, occlusion and infection were reduced, and patients having these ca
theters did not require heparin flushes.