Ek. Hoffer et al., Peripherally inserted central catheters with distal versus proximal valves: Prospective randomized trial, J VAS INT R, 12(10), 2001, pp. 1173-1177
PURPOSE: To evaluate whether peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs
) with a proximal valve have any advantage compared to those with a distal
valve in regard to the incidence of occlusion, infection, or malfunction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred patients (mean age, 46 y) were randomize
d to receive either a distal-valved Bard Groshong catheter (n = 48) or a pr
oximal-valved Catheter Innovations Pressure Activated Safety Valve catheter
(n = 52). All catheters were 4-F, single-lumen PICCs. Catheters were place
d under fluoroscopic (n = 82) or sonographic (n = 18) guidance. Most (91%)
were placed for the administration of antibiotics. The placement procedure,
maintenance, and weekly follow-up were the same for both catheters.
RESULTS: Percutaneous placement with the catheter tip in the central veins
was successful in all patients. Mean dwell time was 36 days. There were 12
(25%) occlusive or infectious complications in the distal valve catheter gr
oup and six (11.5%) in the proximal valve group (P = .08). There were 25 fr
actures in 17 distal valve catheters (35.4%) and three (5.8%) proximal valv
e catheter fractures (P < .01).
CONCLUSION: There was a marked difference in durability between the valved
catheters, in favor of the catheter with a proximal valve. There was also a
trend for fewer occlusive and infectious complications with the proximal v
alve catheter.