Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: Own Experience of Clinical Use

A.M. Pronina, I.A. Kurmukov, O.A. Obuhova, Sh.R. Kashiya

N.N. Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center under the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, 24 Kashirskoye sh., Moscow, Russian Federation, 115478

For correspondence: Anna Mikhailovna Pronina, MD, 24 Kashirskoye sh., Moscow, Russian Federation, 115478; Tel.: +7(499)324-62-59; e-mail:

For citation: Pronina AM, Kurmukov IA, Obukhova OA, Kashiya ShR. Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: Own Experience of Clinical Use. Clinical oncohematology. 2015;8(4):428–435 (In Russ).

DOI: 10.21320/2500-2139-2015-8-4-428-435


Background & Aims. At present, peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) are widely used as a medium-term vascular access for patients with various diseases. In this country, these catheters are used rarely to provide vascular access in patients with cancer. Therefore, the purpose of the study is to formulate indications for implantation of these catheters to oncological patients taking into account our own clinical experience in implantation and operation of PICC.

Methods. From November, 2013, till November, 2014, at N.N. Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center, 19 peripherally inserted central catheters were implanted to 19 patients. All catheters were placed by anesthesiologists. Peripheral or deep veins of a shoulder were punctured under the dynamic ultrasonic control.

Results. Successful catheterization was achieved in 18 of 19 patients. The median PICC dwell time was 33 days (range from 1 to 116 days), a total of 692 catheter days. In one case, during the implantation of a catheter, some technical complication were observed which made impossible its further using. Complications related to the catheter were reported in 7 cases including 2 cases of local infection of the soft tissue at the stationary point of a catheter. Inadvertent removal of a catheter was registered in 3 cases. No complications were registered.

Conclusion. Implantation of peripheral inserted central catheters under dynamic ultrasonic control has both high percent of a successful сatheterization and a minimum number of procedure-related complications. After training the staff and patients in operation of the catheter, this venous access allows to perform all necessary courses of treatments of up to 6 months.

Keywords: venous access, peripherally inserted central catheter, ultrasound-guided venipuncture.

Received: March 25, 2015

Accepted: September 30, 2015

Read in PDF (RUS)pdficon


  1. Abedin S, Kapoor G. Peripherally inserted central venous catheters are a good option for prolonged venous access in children with cancer. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2008;51:251–5.
  2. Royal College of Nursing (2005b) IV Therapy Forum. Standards for Infusion Therapy. London: Royal College of Nursing; 2005.
  3. Petersen J, Delaney JH, Brakstad MT, et al. Silicone venous access devices positioned with their tips high in the superior vena cava are more likely to malfunction. Am J Surg. 1999;178(1):38–41. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9610(99)00124-5.
  4. Bard Access Systems, Groshong PICC. Instructions for Use.
  5. National Association of Vascular Access Networks. NAVAN Position Statement. J. Vasc. Access Device. 1998;3(2):8–10.
  6. Yamamoto AJ, Solomon JA, Soulen MC, et al. Sutureless securement device reduces complications of peripherally inserted central venous catheters. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2002;13(1); 77–81. doi: 10.1016/s1051-0443(07)60012-8.
  7. Ahn DH, Illum HB, Wang DH, et al. Upper Extremity Venous Thrombosis in Patients With Cancer With Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheters: A Retrospective Analysis of Risk Factors. J Oncol Pract. 2012;9(1):8–12. doi: 10.1200/jop.2012.000595.
  8. Chopra V, Ratz D, Kuhn L, et al. Peripherally inserted central catheter-related deep vein thrombosis: contemporary patterns and predictors. J Thromb Haemost. 2014;12(6):847–54. doi: 10.1111/jth.12549.
  9. Liem TK, Yanit KE, Moseley SE, et al. Peripherally inserted central catheter usage patterns and associated symptomatic upper extremity venous thrombosis. J Vasc Surg. 2012;55(3):761–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2011.10.005.
  10. Kirkpatrick A, Rathbun S, Whitsett T, Raskob G. Prevention of central venous catheter-associated thrombosis: a meta-analysis. Am J Med. 2007;120(10):901.e1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2007.05.010.
  11. Kuter DJ. Thrombotic complications of central venous catheters in cancer patients. The Oncologist. 2004;9:207–16. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.9-2-207.
  12. Kenney BD, David M, Bensoussan AL. Anticoagulation without catheter removal in children with catheter-related central vein thrombosis. J Pediatr Surg. 1996;31:816–8. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3468(96)90141-4.
  13. Tran H, Arellano M, Chamsuddin A, et al. Deep venous thromboses in patients with hematological malignancies after peripherally inserted central venous catheters. Leuk Lymphoma. 2010;51:1473–7. doi: 10.3109/10428194.2010.481065.
  14. Kovacs MJ, Kahn SR, Rodger M, et al. A pilot study of central venous catheter survival in cancer patients using low-molecular-weight heparin (dalteparin) and warfarin without catheter removal for the treatment of upper extremity deep vein thrombosis. J Thromb Haemost. 2007;5:1650–3. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2007.02613.x.
  15. Maki DG, Kluger DM, Crnich CJ. The risk of bloodstream infection in adults with different intravascular devices: a systematic review of 200 published prospective studies. Mayo Clin Proc 2006;81(9):1159–71. doi: 10.4065/81.9.1159.
  16. Chopra V, O’Horo JC, Rogers MA, Maki DG, Safdar N. The risk of bloodstream infection associated with peripherally inserted central catheters compared with central venous catheters in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Infect Contr Hosp Epidemiol. 2013;34(9):908–18. doi: 10.1086/671737.
  17. Vidal V, Muller C, Jacquier A, et al. Prospective evaluation of PICC line related complications. J Radiol. 2008;89(4):495–8. doi: 10.1016/s0221-0363(08)71453-7.
  18. Merrell SW, Peatross BG, Grossman MD, et al. Peripherally inserted central venous catheters. Low-risk alternatives for ongoing venous access. West J Med. 1994;160:25–30.
  19. Hoffer AK, Bloch RD, Borsa JJ, et al. Peripherally inserted central venous catheters with distal versus proximal valves: prospective randomized trial. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2001;12:1173–7. doi: 10.1016/s1051-0443(07)61676-5.
  20. Ryder MA. Peripherally inserted central venous catheters. Nurs Clin North Am. 1993;28(4):937–71.
  21. Gallieni M, Pittiruti M, Biffi R. Vascular Access in Oncology Patients. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;58:323–46. doi: 10.3322/ca.2008.0015.