Peripherally inserted central catheters can be an alternative to tunneled central venous catheters in chemotherapy for hematological and oncological pediatric patients
Timestops (1)
Tools Used
Topic Overview
Key Takeaways
- PICCs showed shorter time from diagnosis to insertion compared to tunneled CVCs in pediatric oncology patients (n=133 catheters).
- No general anesthesia required for PICC placement, unlike tunneled CVCs, reducing procedural risk in immunocompromised children.
- Complication rates were comparable between PICCs (n=73) and tunneled CVCs (n=60) for chemotherapy delivery.
- PICCs may serve as viable alternative to tunneled CVCs for select pediatric hematology/oncology patients requiring central access.
- Shorter indwelling time with PICCs suggests potential for reduced infection exposure in chemotherapy patients.
Keywords
Hashtags
Transcript
Do you always use tunnels central venous catheters for chemotherapy? Hi, I'm Cecilia Jeena from Cincinnati Children's Hospital, and I think this is an article that you should know about. This is a retrospective study done in Tokyo that aimed to evaluate the benefits of a peripherally inserted central catheter compared to a tunnel CBC. And what did they find? They had 133 catheters, 73 were pigs and 60 were tunnel CBCs. They found that pigs had shorter indwelling time, shorter time from diagnosis to insertion, and none of them required general. Anesthesia, and there were no significant differences between complications in both groups, so it seems that PICs can be a useful alternative to tunnel CBCs for chemotherapy for some patients. Let us know what you think and stay tuned for more articles that you should know about.