Review of tunneled and traditional PICCs in cancer patients
Abstract:
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.
Reference:
Lu T, Xu Y, Wei J, Ying Y. Comparison of Tunneled vs Traditional PICCs in Cancer Patients: A Propensity Score-Matched Study. J Infus Nurs. 2025 Nov-Dec 01;48(6):422-432. doi: 10.1097/NAN.0000000000000616. Epub 2025 Oct 24. PMID: 41192354.