Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare catheter-related outcomes of individuals who received a tunnelled femorally inserted central catheter (tFICC) with those who received a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) in the upper extremities. DESIGN: A propensity-score matched cohort study. SETTING: A 980-bed tertiary referral hospital in South West Sydney, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: In-patients referred to the hospital central venous access service for the insertion of a central venous access device. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of all-cause catheter failure. Secondary outcomes included the rates of catheters removed because of suspected or confirmed catheter-associated infection, catheter dwell and confirmed upper or lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT). RESULTS: The overall rate of all-cause catheter failure in the matched tFICC and PICC cohort was 2.4/1000 catheter days (95% CI 1.1 to 4.4) and 3.0/1000 catheter days (95% CI 2.3 to 3.9), respectively, and when compared, no difference was observed (difference -0.63/1000 catheter days, 95% CI -2.32 to 1.06). We found no differences in catheter dwell (mean difference of 14.2 days, 95% CI -6.6 to 35.0, p=0.910); or in the cumulative probability of failure between the two groups within the first month of dwell (p=0.358). No significant differences were observed in the rate of catheters requiring removal for confirmed central line-associated bloodstream infection (difference 0.13/1000 catheter day, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.63, p=0.896). Similarly, no significant differences were found between the groups for confirmed catheter-related DVT (difference -0.11 per 1000 catheter days, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.04, p=1.00). CONCLUSION: There were no differences in catheter-related outcomes between the matched cohort of tFICC and PICC patients, suggesting that tFICCs are a possible alternative for vascular access when the veins of the upper extremities or thoracic region are not viable for catheterisation.