Comparison of complications between reverse-tapered and nontapered peripherally inserted central catheters

Abstract

Purpose of this study was to compare the complication rates between reverse-tapered and nontapered peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). In total, 407 patients who had an inpatient clinic-based PICC insertion between September 2019 and November 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Seven PICC types were used (4 reverse tapered: 4-Fr single-lumen (n = 75), 5-Fr single-lumen (n = 78), 5-Fr double-lumen (n = 62), and 6-Fr triple-lumen (n = 61); 3 nontapered: 4-Fr single-lumen (n = 73), 5-Fr double-lumen (n = 30), and 6-Fr triple-lumen (n = 23)). Complications such as periprocedural bleeding, delayed bleeding, inadvertent removal, catheter obstruction by thrombosis, infection, and leakage were investigated. The overall complication rate was 27.1%. The complication rate was significantly higher for nontapered PICCs than reverse-tapered PICCs (50.0% vs 16.7%, P < 0.001). The overall periprocedural bleeding rate was significantly higher for nontapered PICCs than for reverse-tapered PICCs (27.0% vs 6.2%, P <0.001). The overall inadvertent removal rate was significantly higher for nontapered PICCs than for reverse-tapered PICCs (15.1% vs 3.3%, P < 0.001). There were no other significant differences in complication rates. Nontapered PICCs were associated with higher rates of periprocedural bleeding and inadvertent removal than reverse-tapered PICCs.

Fig 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Fig 2. Illustration of nontapered and reverse-tapered PICCs.

The diameters of nontapered PICC remain equal throughout the catheter. For a reversed-tapered PICC, the diameter of the catheter gradually increases over a distance of 7 cm or 2 to 3 cm from the hub.