Comparison of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters versus Central Venous Catheters in a Medical Intensive Care Unit: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.
5 affiliations
- 1Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, 410013, People's Republic of China.
- 2Nursing Department, The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, 410013, People's Republic of China.
- 3Department of Intensive Care Unit, Qingdao Municipal Hospital Group, Qingdao University, Qingdao, 266000, People's Republic of China.
- 4Teaching and Research Section of Clinical Nursing, Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, 410008, People's Republic of China.
- 5Department of Nephrology, The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, 410013, People's Republic of China.
Abstract
Background
Patients in medical intensive care units (MICUs) often require prolonged intravenous therapy, making optimal catheter selection critical. While central venous catheters (CVCs) remain common, peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are increasingly used. This single-centre retrospective study compared indwelling time, clinical utility, and complication profiles between PICCs and CVCs in MICU patients.Methods
We analyzed 276 MICU patients with either a PICC or CVC, comparing catheter selection, length of stay, dwell time, and complication rates. Complication rates were also standardized per 1000 catheter-days.Results
PICCs were used more frequently in patients with malignancy (P < 0.001) or requiring chemotherapy (P < 0.001), whereas CVCs were preferred in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P = 0.012), diabetes (P = 0.012), COVID-19 (P = 0.020), or vasopressor infusion (P = 0.001). PICCs were associated with longer indwelling times (≥12 days, P < 0.001). In the unstandardized analysis, PICCs had higher rates of catheter dislodgement (P < 0.001) and occlusion (P = 0.005), but lower rates of puncture-site complications (bleeding, hypersensitivity, fluid leakage; all P < 0.05) and deep vein thrombosis incidence (P = 0.038). After standardization per 1,000 catheter-days, dislodgement remained significantly more frequent with PICCs, whereas the difference in occlusion was no longer statistically significant. No bloodstream infections occurred with PICCs, versus 5.4% with CVCs (P = 0.169). Because groups differed substantially in patient selection, clinical indication, dwell time, insertion site, and securement method, these findings should be interpreted as associations rather than evidence of superiority.Conclusion
PICCs were associated with longer indwelling times and a higher rate of dislodgement, but lower rates of puncture-site complications and deep vein thrombosis; the difference in occlusion was no longer significant after standardization. Vascular access selection should be individualized according to patient characteristics, therapy requirements, anticipated duration, and device-related risks.
Related
- Central vein stenosis detected during a second peripherally inserted central catheter placement in a patient with recurrent breast cancer: a case report
- Development and validation of a nomogram incorporating vascular morphological parameters for prediction of peripherally inserted central catheter-related thromboembolism in cancer patients.
- In vitro contact force evaluation of robotic magnetic navigation catheters; Head to head comparison of different catheters and different settings
- Comparative outcomes of arteriovenous accesses with and without tunneled hemodialysis catheters: A retrospective cohort study.
- Outcomes of Comprehensive Multiple Sclerosis Care: A Pilot Comparison of Intensive, Integrated, and Usual Care Approaches
BibTeX
@article{long2026comparison,
title = {{Comparison of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters versus Central Venous Catheters in a Medical Intensive Care Unit: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.}},
author = {Guo Long and Chao Jia and Huan Peng and Yuanming Li},
journal = {International journal of general medicine},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.2147/ijgm.s653773},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42968810},
note = {CC BY-NC},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Comparison of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters versus Central Venous Catheters in a Medical Intensive Care Unit: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.
AU - Guo Long
AU - Chao Jia
AU - Huan Peng
AU - Yuanming Li
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/28
JO - International journal of general medicine
DO - 10.2147/ijgm.s653773
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42968810
AB - Background Patients in medical intensive care units (MICUs) often require prolonged intravenous therapy, making optimal catheter selection critical. While central venous catheters (CVCs) remain common, peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are increasingly used. This single-centre retrospective study compared indwelling time, clinical utility, and complication profiles between PICCs and CVCs in MICU patients.Methods We analyzed 276 MICU patients with either a PICC or CVC, comparing catheter selection, length of stay, dwell time, and complication rates. Complication rates were also standardized per 1000 catheter-days.Results PICCs were used more frequently in patients with malignancy (P < 0.001) or requiring chemotherapy (P < 0.001), whereas CVCs were preferred in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P = 0.012), diabetes (P = 0.012), COVID-19 (P = 0.020), or vasopressor infusion (P = 0.001). PICCs were associated with longer indwelling times (≥12 days, P < 0.001). In the unstandardized analysis, PICCs had higher rates of catheter dislodgement (P < 0.001) and occlusion (P = 0.005), but lower rates of puncture-site complications (bleeding, hypersensitivity, fluid leakage; all P < 0.05) and deep vein thrombosis incidence (P = 0.038). After standardization per 1,000 catheter-days, dislodgement remained significantly more frequent with PICCs, whereas the difference in occlusion was no longer statistically significant. No bloodstream infections occurred with PICCs, versus 5.4% with CVCs (P = 0.169). Because groups differed substantially in patient selection, clinical indication, dwell time, insertion site, and securement method, these findings should be interpreted as associations rather than evidence of superiority.Conclusion PICCs were associated with longer indwelling times and a higher rate of dislodgement, but lower rates of puncture-site complications and deep vein thrombosis; the difference in occlusion was no longer significant after standardization. Vascular access selection should be individualized according to patient characteristics, therapy requirements, anticipated duration, and device-related risks.
SN - 1178-7074
ER -