Abstract:
Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) are widely used for intravenous therapy in patients with cancer. However, traditional PICC placement is associated with a lower first-attempt success rate, a higher risk of catheter-related infections, and challenges in catheter maintenance. In recent years, the echo-dynamic ultrasound-guided (EDUG) tunneled PICC, a modified technique, has been increasingly adopted in clinical practice. This study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of EDUG-guided tunneled PICC with traditional PICC in cancer patients. A retrospective analysis was conducted using medical records of 156 cancer patients who underwent PICC placement at our hospital between January 2022 and December 2024. Patients were categorized into the EDUG group (n = 79) and the traditional PICC group (n = 77). Data were collected from electronic health records, and key outcomes compared between the 2 groups included first-attempt success rate, catheter-related infections, catheter-associated venous thrombosis, local complications, and indwelling time. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the 2 groups (all P > .05). The first-attempt success rate was significantly higher in the EDUG group (96.2%) compared to the traditional group (85.7%) (P = .033). The incidence of catheter-related infections was lower in the EDUG group (2.53% vs 7.79%, P = .045). Although the rate of venous thrombosis was not statistically different (1.27% vs 6.49%, P = .060), no significant difference was observed between the 2 groups. The overall complication rate was significantly reduced in the EDUG group (5.1% vs 14.3%, P = .029). Moreover, the average indwelling time was significantly longer in the EDUG group (96.8 ± 22.3 days vs 83.6 ± 19.5 days, P < .001). EDUG-guided tunneled PICC demonstrates a higher success rate, lower infection and complication rates, and a longer indwelling time compared with traditional PICC in cancer patients. These findings suggest that EDUG-guided tunneled PICC may offer clinical advantages over traditional PICC, particularly in terms of catheter stability and reduced complications. Further studies are needed to confirm these benefits and assess their generalizability. This technique offers favorable safety and stability and is suitable for clinical application in patients requiring long-term intravenous therapy.
Reference:Zeng J, Zhang Y, Xu H. Comparison of the safety and efficacy of EDUG-guided tunnelled PICC versus traditional PICC in patients with cancer: A retrospective study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2025 Oct 10;104(41):e44727. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000044727. PMID: 41088715.