BMJ Open (May 2024)

Comparison of outcomes from tunnelled femorally inserted central catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters: a propensity score-matched cohort study

  • Evan Alexandrou,
  • Steven Frost,
  • Craig McManus,
  • Nicholas Mifflin,
  • Renz Rivera,
  • Sophie Vause,
  • Ton Tran,
  • Matthew Ostroff,
  • Lorenza Harrowell

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-081749
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 14, no. 5

Abstract

Read online

Objectives To compare catheter-related outcomes of individuals who received a tunnelled femorally inserted central catheter (tFICC) with those who received a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) in the upper extremities.Design A propensity-score matched cohort study.Setting A 980-bed tertiary referral hospital in South West Sydney, Australia.Participants In-patients referred to the hospital central venous access service for the insertion of a central venous access device.Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of all-cause catheter failure. Secondary outcomes included the rates of catheters removed because of suspected or confirmed catheter-associated infection, catheter dwell and confirmed upper or lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT).Results The overall rate of all-cause catheter failure in the matched tFICC and PICC cohort was 2.4/1000 catheter days (95% CI 1.1 to 4.4) and 3.0/1000 catheter days (95% CI 2.3 to 3.9), respectively, and when compared, no difference was observed (difference −0.63/1000 catheter days, 95% CI −2.32 to 1.06). We found no differences in catheter dwell (mean difference of 14.2 days, 95% CI −6.6 to 35.0, p=0.910); or in the cumulative probability of failure between the two groups within the first month of dwell (p=0.358). No significant differences were observed in the rate of catheters requiring removal for confirmed central line-associated bloodstream infection (difference 0.13/1000 catheter day, 95% CI −0.36 to 0.63, p=0.896). Similarly, no significant differences were found between the groups for confirmed catheter-related DVT (difference −0.11 per 1000 catheter days, 95% CI −0.26 to 0.04, p=1.00).Conclusion There were no differences in catheter-related outcomes between the matched cohort of tFICC and PICC patients, suggesting that tFICCs are a possible alternative for vascular access when the veins of the upper extremities or thoracic region are not viable for catheterisation.