Comparison of complications between reverse-tapered and nontapered peripherally inserted central catheters

4Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Purpose of this study was to compare the complication rates between reverse-tapered and nontapered peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). In total, 407 patients who had an inpatient clinic-based PICC insertion between September 2019 and November 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Seven PICC types were used (4 reverse tapered: 4-Fr single-lumen (n = 75), 5-Fr single-lumen (n = 78), 5-Fr double-lumen (n = 62), and 6-Fr triple-lumen (n = 61); 3 nontapered: 4-Fr single-lumen (n = 73), 5-Fr double-lumen (n = 30), and 6-Fr triple-lumen (n = 23)). Complications such as periprocedural bleeding, delayed bleeding, inadvertent removal, catheter obstruction by thrombosis, infection, and leakage were investigated. The overall complication rate was 27.1%. The complication rate was significantly higher for nontapered PICCs than reverse-tapered PICCs (50.0% vs 16.7%, P < 0.001). The overall periprocedural bleeding rate was significantly higher for nontapered PICCs than for reverse-tapered PICCs (27.0% vs 6.2%, P <0.001). The overall inadvertent removal rate was significantly higher for nontapered PICCs than for reverse-tapered PICCs (15.1% vs 3.3%, P < 0.001). There were no other significant differences in complication rates. Nontapered PICCs were associated with higher rates of periprocedural bleeding and inadvertent removal than reverse-tapered PICCs.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bae, H. S., Kim, K. Y., & Han, Y. M. (2023). Comparison of complications between reverse-tapered and nontapered peripherally inserted central catheters. PLoS ONE, 18(5 MAY). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285445

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free