目的:本研究旨在比较隧道式外周中心静脉置管(T-PICC)与成人癌症患者的常规PICC(C-PICC)。
方法:一项多中心随机对照试验于2021年4月至2022年1月在中国7家医院进行。564名参与者被随机分配到T-PICC或C-PICC。收集并比较这些数据:基线特征和导管插入相关特征,围手术期并发症,和长期并发症。
结果:553名参与者(年龄,52.6±12.3岁;女性,39.1%)进行最终分析。T-PICC组和C-PICC组患者围手术期并发症差异无统计学意义(均p>0.05)。与C-PICC相比,T-PICC可显著降低长期并发症的发生率(26.4%vs.39.9%,p<0.001)。具体来说,在中心线相关血流感染中发现并发症减少(1.8%vs.5.1%,p=0.04),血栓形成(1.1%vs.4.0%,p=0.03),导管移位(4.7%与10.1%,p=0.01),非传染性渗出(17.3%vs.28.6%,p=0.002),局部感染(3.6%vs.7.6%,p=0.04),皮肤刺激(6.1%vs.10.9%,p=0.046),并减少意外导管移除(2.2%vs.7.2%,p=0.005)。T-PICC和C-PICC在导管闭塞方面无显著差异(6.5%vs.5.8%,p=0.73)或皮肤损伤(2.2%vs.2.9%,p=0.58)。
结论:T-PICC安全,可有效减少长期并发症。
结论:隧道技术可有效减少PICC相关的长期并发症。因此,建议用于PICC相关并发症高风险的癌症患者.
背景:https://www上的注册号。chictr.org.cn/是ChiCTR2100044632。试验注册中心的名称是“隧道与临床使用的多中心随机对照研究。非隧道式PICC“。
结论:Cather相关并发症与导管插入技术有关。与常规PICC相比,隧道式PICC减少了导管相关的长期并发症。隧道式PICC放置为癌症患者提供了一种替代的导管插入方法。
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of tunneled peripherally inserted central catheters (T-PICC) vs. conventional PICCs (C-PICC) in adult cancer patients.
METHODS: A multicentre randomized controlled trial was conducted between April 2021 and January 2022 in seven hospitals in China. 564 participants were randomly assigned to T-PICC or C-PICC. These data were collected and compared: the baseline characteristics and catheterization-related characteristics, periprocedural complications, and long-term complications.
RESULTS: Five-hundred fifty-three participants (aged, 52.6 ± 12.3 years; female, 39.1%) were ultimately analyzed. No significant differences in periprocedural complications were found between the T-PICC and C-PICC groups (all p > 0.05). Compared with C-PICC, T-PICC significantly reduced the incidence of long-term complications (26.4% vs. 39.9%, p < 0.001). Specifically, reduced complications were found in central line-associated bloodstream infection (1.8% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.04), thrombosis (1.1% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.03), catheter dislodgement (4.7% vs. 10.1%, p = 0.01), non-infectious oozing (17.3% vs. 28.6%, p = 0.002), local infection (3.6% vs. 7.6%, p = 0.04), skin irritation (6.1% vs. 10.9%, p = 0.046), and reduced unplanned catheter removal (2.2% vs. 7.2%, p = 0.005). No significant differences were found between T-PICC and C-PICC regarding catheter occlusion (6.5% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.73) or skin damage (2.2% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.58).
CONCLUSIONS: T-PICC is safe and effectively reduces long-term complications.
CONCLUSIONS: The tunneled technique is effective in reducing PICC-related long-term complications. Thus, it is recommended for cancer patients at high risk of PICC-related complications.
BACKGROUND: The registration number on https://www.chictr.org.cn/ is ChiCTR2100044632. The name of the trial registry is \"A multicenter randomized controlled study of clinical use of tunneled vs. non-tunneled PICC\".
CONCLUSIONS: Cather-related complications are associated with the technique of catheterization. Compared with conventional PICC, tunneled PICC reduced catheter-related long-term complications. Tunneled PICC placement provides an alternative catheterization method for cancer patients.