• Teoh Sze Yong, Anushya A/P Vijayanathan, Eric Chung, Wei Lin Ng, Nur Adura Yaakup, and Norshazriman Sulaiman.
• Department of Biomedical Imaging, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
• J Vasc Access. 2021 Jan 13: 1129729820987373.

ObjectiveTo compare catheter related blood stream infection (CRBSI) rate between cuffed tunnelled and non-cuffed tunnelled PICC.MethodsWe prospectively followed 100 patients (50:50 cuffed and non-cuffed PICC) and compared CRBSI rate between these groups. Daily review and similar catheter care were performed until a PICC-related complication, completion of therapy, death or defined end-of-study date necessitate removal. CRBSI was confirmed in each case by demonstrating concordance between isolates colonizing the PICC at the time of infection and from peripheral blood cultures.ResultsA total of 50 cuffed PICC were placed for 1864 catheter-days. Of these, 12 patients (24%) developed infection, for which 5 patients (10%) had a CRBSI for a rate of 2.7 per 1000 catheter-days. Another 50 tunnelled non-cuffed PICCs were placed for 2057 catheter-days. Of these, 7 patients (14%) developed infection, for which 3 patients (6%) had a CRBSI. for a rate of 1.5 per 1000 catheter-days. The mean time to development of infection is 24 days in cuffed and 19 days in non-cuffed groups. The mean duration of utilization was significantly longer in non-cuffed than in cuffed group (43 days in non-cuffed vs 37 days in cuffed group, p = 0.008).ConclusionsCuffed PICC does not further reduce the rate of local or bloodstream infection. Tunnelled non-cuffed PICC is shown to be as effective if not better at reducing risk of CRBSI and providing longer catheter dwell time compared to cuffed PICC.

3 keywords...

hide…