Central Venous Catheters versus Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: A Comparison of Indwelling Time Resulting in Colonization by Multidrug-Resistant Pathogens.

backgroundThe use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) as an alternative to central venous catheters (CVCs) has steadily risen over the last two decades. However, there is an ongoing debate regarding research evidence that supports any clear advantages or disadvantages of them compared to traditional central venous lines. The present study was conducted to compare the indwelling time of CVC and PICC placements leading to microbial colonization by multidrug-resistant microorganisms (MDROs) in critically ill patients.

methodsA single-center retrospective descriptive study was performed that reviewed the medical records of critically ill patients with colonized CVCs and PICCs who were hospitalized during a 24-month period (May 2019-May 2021). To evaluate the association between indwelling time of catheter placement and colonization rates, events were categorized into three groups, each representing a one-week time interval of catheter indwelling time: group 1: ≤7 days, group 2: 8-14 days, and group 3: >14 days.

resultsA total of 207 hospitalized patients with colonized PICCs or CVCs were included in the study. Of these, 144 (69.5%) had a CVC placement and 63 (30.5%) had a PICC placement. The overall colonization rate (per 1.000 catheter/days) was 14.73 in the CVC and 5.67 in the PICC cohort (

conclusionsOur findings show that while the indwelling time of PICC placement was longer compared to CVCs, its colonization rate was considerably lower. Furthermore, high colonization rates by microorganisms, especially MDROs, arose later during catheterization in PICCs compared to CVCs, suggesting that in terms of vascular infections, PICCs may be a safer alternative to conventional CVCs for long-term intravenous access.