Endothelial thrombus formation: an unusual complication related to peripherally inserted central catheters

The Effect of Laterality on Venous Thromboembolism Formation after Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Placement

Purpose

The use of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) has become widespread in hospital medicine. PICCs are preferentially placed on the right side due to anatomic ease of insertion into the superior vena cava. However, no data exists examining whether this practice is also protective against symptomatic venous thrombosis. The purpose of this study is to assess placement of right-sided versus left-sided PICCs and the resulting rates of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in a community teaching hospital.

Methods and Results

A retrospective analysis was performed of 798 sequential PICCs placed in our community teaching hospital in 2008. Indication for PICC placement, laterality of PICC placement, and signs and symptoms leading to ultrasound assessment were examined as well as the resulting VTE location. Six hundred and seventy two patients had a total of 798 PICCs placed over the course of the year, 568 of these were right-sided catheters, and 230 were left-sided catheters. Forty-nine of these patients required 68 Doppler ultrasounds within 30 days of PICC placement. Of these ultrasounds, 47 (8.27%) followed right-sided PICCs and 21 (9.13%) followed left-sided PICCs (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.52–1.54). VTE events were documented in 1.23% of right-sided PICCs and 1.30% of left-sided PICCs (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.24–3.68). The overall incidence of this complication was 1.25%. Mean time until discovery of the thrombus was 13.6 days.

Conclusions

Laterality of PICC placement is not significantly associated with symptomatic VTE formation. The overall rate of thrombosis in our study is comparable to that of previous studies.

Venous thrombosis associated with the placement of peripherally inserted central catheters

PURPOSE

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) have become an essential component of the management of an increasing number of patients, including patients who may require hemodialysis. Reported symptomatic venous thrombosis rates associated with PICC lines are based on clinical signs and symptoms and range from 1% to 4%. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the true rate of thrombosis of upper extremity veins after the placement of PICCs and the potential impact on future access in hemodialysis patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed. Patients who had (i) normal findings during initial venography, (ii) PICC placement, and (iii) who underwent subsequent repeated venography were included. Age, sex, vein cannulated, catheter size, location, and incidence of thrombosis were analyzed.

RESULTS

Three hundred fifty-four PICCs were placed in 119 patients. Of the 144 extremities, 137 had normal findings during initial venography. Of the 137 extremities, 32 developed thrombosis of the cannulated vein (or central veins) after initial PICC placement (23.3%). When all extremities with multiple PICC lines placed were considered, 52 developed thrombosis, for an overall thrombosis rate of 38%. The incidence of thrombosis by site was cephalic 57%, basilic 14%, and brachial 10%. No significant differences were noted in the rates of thrombosis by age, sex, or catheter size.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a relatively high rate of venous thrombosis associated with PICCs, particularly cephalic thrombus. Because of the high rate of thrombosis associated with these catheters, an alternative mode of access should be considered in current or potential hemodialysis patients. All patients with a history of PICC line placement requiring dialysis access should undergo upper extremity venography prior to the placement of permanent access.

I.v. access options for AIDS patients with cytomegalovirus disease

In view of changes over the past 2 years in the intravenous (i.v.) management of patients with AIDS and cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease, a small study was carried out at the Kobler Clinic, an HIV treatment centre in London, to examine optimal i.v. access for CMV induction treatment. Thirty lines were analysed over a period of 4 months: 18 were peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and 12 were midline catheters. Each line was monitored and evaluated for reason for choice of line, insertion data, line survival, patient self-administration, patient comfort scores, infection rate, and other difficulties encountered during treatment induction. The study results indicated noticeable differences between PICC and midline catheter performances, although a change in treatment protocol during the study influenced the choice of line used. There were also marked differences from other studies, carried out predominantly in non-HIV patients, when infection rate, dwell time of lines and thrombus formation were compared. Significant changes in practice have been implemented and further clinical studies/research identified.