TY - JOUR
T1 - Performance comparison of peripherally inserted central venous catheters in gastrointestinal surgery
T2 - A randomized controlled trial
AU - Miyagaki, Hiromichi
AU - Nakajima, Kiyokazu
AU - Hara, Joji
AU - Yamasaki, Makoto
AU - Kurokawa, Yukinori
AU - Miyata, Hiroshi
AU - Takiguchi, Shuji
AU - Fujiwara, Yoshiyuki
AU - Mori, Masaki
AU - Doki, Yuichiro
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was supported financially by Nippon Sherwood Medical Industries Ltd. (Tokyo, Japan). The authors declare no further conflict of interest.
PY - 2012/2
Y1 - 2012/2
N2 - Background & aims: Peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) are long-term vascular access devices inserted through a peripheral vein of the arm and serve as an alternative to traditional central venous catheters. Currently different types of PICCs are available. No data, however, are available in regard to materials and tip designs. We designed a prospective, randomized trial comparing two major PICCs with different material and tip design: a silicone catheter with distal side slits (Groshong Catheter) and a polyurethane catheter with open-end tip (PI Catheter). Methods: Twenty-six patients who underwent PICCs placement between August 2010 and December 2010 were enrolled in the study. The primary endpoint was the completion rate of PICC indication. Secondary endpoints were complications rate. Result: The completion rate of PICC indication was not different significantly (81.8% and 92.9%, p=0.5648) and the total complication rate were also not different significantly (9.1% and 14.3%, P=1.0000) between two catheters. In detail, PI Catheter were associated with a significantly higher incidence of catheter occlusion, and Groshong Catheter were associated with a significantly hemorrhages after removal. Conclusion: There was no difference in the durability and the complication between Groshong Catheter and PI Catheter. (UMIN Clinical Trial Registry UMIN000005451).
AB - Background & aims: Peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) are long-term vascular access devices inserted through a peripheral vein of the arm and serve as an alternative to traditional central venous catheters. Currently different types of PICCs are available. No data, however, are available in regard to materials and tip designs. We designed a prospective, randomized trial comparing two major PICCs with different material and tip design: a silicone catheter with distal side slits (Groshong Catheter) and a polyurethane catheter with open-end tip (PI Catheter). Methods: Twenty-six patients who underwent PICCs placement between August 2010 and December 2010 were enrolled in the study. The primary endpoint was the completion rate of PICC indication. Secondary endpoints were complications rate. Result: The completion rate of PICC indication was not different significantly (81.8% and 92.9%, p=0.5648) and the total complication rate were also not different significantly (9.1% and 14.3%, P=1.0000) between two catheters. In detail, PI Catheter were associated with a significantly higher incidence of catheter occlusion, and Groshong Catheter were associated with a significantly hemorrhages after removal. Conclusion: There was no difference in the durability and the complication between Groshong Catheter and PI Catheter. (UMIN Clinical Trial Registry UMIN000005451).
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84856228304&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84856228304&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.clnu.2011.09.002
DO - 10.1016/j.clnu.2011.09.002
M3 - Article
C2 - 21945145
AN - SCOPUS:84856228304
VL - 31
SP - 48
EP - 52
JO - Clinical Nutrition
JF - Clinical Nutrition
SN - 0261-5614
IS - 1
ER -