Key result
Tunneled PICCs in cancer patients were associated with significantly lower rates of infection (6.19% vs 17.70%) and catheter displacement compared to traditional PICCs.
Why the study?
The study aimed to compare complication rates and laboratory outcomes between tunneled and conventional peripherally inserted central catheters in cancer patients using propensity score matching.
Do tunneled PICCs reduce complication rates compared to traditional PICCs in cancer patients?
Cohort (n=418)
No
Do tunneled PICCs reduce complication rates compared to traditional PICCs in cancer patients?
Odds Ratio: 3.257 (95% CI 1.32–8.02)
Absolute Event Rate: 6.19% vs 17.7%
p-value: p=.011
Tunneled PICCs provide a safer vascular access option with fewer complications than conventional PICCs in oncology patients.
Tunneled PICCs may lower complications in cancer patients; hypothesis-generating and requires RCTs before practice change.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare complication rates and laboratory outcomes between tunneled and conventional peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) in cancer patients using propensity score matching (PSM). METHODS: This single-center retrospective cohort study, which took place from 2021 to 2023, included 418 patients. After 1:1 PSM, 113 matched patients were analyzed in each group. Complication rates and laboratory indicators were compared. Logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for infection and catheter displacement. RESULTS: Compared to traditional PICCs, tunneled PICCs were associated with lower infection (6.19% vs 17.70%; P = .014), phlebitis (0% vs 27.43%; P < .001), and catheter displacement rates (33.63% vs 60.18%; P < .001). Regression analysis confirmed reduced risks of infection (OR = 3.257, 95% CI: 1.32-8.02; P = .011) and displacement (OR = 2.982, 95% CI: 1.81-4.91; P < .001). Laboratory analysis showed significantly higher white blood cell (WBC) levels, neutrophil percentages, absolute neutrophil counts, and prothrombin time in the tunneled group (P < .05). In contrast, lymphocyte percentage and monocyte percentage were lower in the tunneled group (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Tunneled PICCs may provide a safer and more stable vascular access option than conventional PICCs in oncology patients. Further prospective studies are warranted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lu et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Cancer (n=418). Tunneled PICCs vs. Traditional PICCs was evaluated on Infection (OR 3.257, 95% CI 1.32-8.02, p=.011). Tunneled PICCs in cancer patients were associated with significantly lower rates of infection (6.19% vs 17.70%) and catheter displacement compared to traditional PICCs.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: