new era in central venous access superiority of the picc in the control of infections

Abstract Background: Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters (PICCs) are an alternative to Central Venous Catheters (CVCs) for the administration of intravenous therapy in hospital settings. Until now, PICCs have been used in highly selected patients and without a clear indication in our hospital. Our study aims to demonstrate that the use of PICCs is associated with a lower rate of bacteremia, in addition to a lower incidence of other complications, and better quality of life. Methods: This is a prospective, randomized single-center study whose main objective is to analyze the rate of bacteremia associated with non tunneled CVCs compared with PICCs. We also analyzed the incidence of complications during the insertion and maintenance of central venous catheters, 30-day mortality, duration of hospital stays in both arms, and perceived quality of life of patients measured using a visual analog scale for pain. Results: Thirteen cases of catheter-associated bacteremia were diagnosed (5.4%), of which 11 (9%) cases corresponded to CVCs and 2 (1.6%) to PICCs, p < 0.001. The hospital stay was more prolonged in patients with CVCs who had complications during insertion or maintenance compared with patients with PICCs, p = 0.004 and p = 0.04, respectively. The CVC group also had more pain also during catheter insertion and 72 hours after insertion compared with the PICC group (p Conclusion: In our study population, PICCs compared with CVCs were associated with fewer cases of bacteremia, less risk of insertion complications, and a better patient quality of life. Keywords Bacteriemia; Central venous catheter; Insertion complications catheter; Peripheral central venous catheter