ArticlePloS one2024
Risk of deep venous thrombosis associated with peripherally inserted central catheter: A retrospective cohort study of 11.588 catheters in Brazil.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Peripherally inserted central catheters versus central venous catheters in critically ill patients under standardized insertion protocols: a propensity score-matched cohort study.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Article
- Associations of Patient Morphology and Venous Anatomy with Early Changes in Upper-Extremity Venous Blood Flow Following PICC Placement in Patients with Cancer: A Prospective Cohort Study.Vascular health and risk management · 2026Article
- Construction and Validation of a Risk Prediction Model for Postoperative Lower Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis in Patients with Vascular Access Devices: A Retrospective Analysis.Vascular health and risk management · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDeep Venous Thrombosis (DVT) due to Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC) is one of the most threatening complications after device insertion.
objectiveTo assess the rate of PICC-associated DVT and analyze the risk factors associated with this event in cancer and critically ill patients.
methodsWe conducted a descriptive, retrospective cohort study with 11,588 PICCs from December 2014 to December 2019. Patients ≥ 18 years receiving a PICC were included. Pre-and post-puncture variables were collected and a logistic regression was used to identify the independent factors associated with the risk of DVT.
resultsThe DVT prevalence was 1.8% (n = 213). The median length of PICC use was 15.3 days. The median age was 75 years (18; 107) and 52% were men, 53.5% were critically ill and 29.1% oncological patients. The most common indications for PICC's were intravenous antibiotics (79.1%). Notably, 91.5% of PICC showed a catheter-to-vein ratio of no more than 33%. The tip location method with intracavitary electrocardiogram was used in 43%. Most catheters (67.9%) were electively removed at the end of intravenous therapy. After adjusting for cancer profile ou chemotherapy, regression anaysis revealed that age (OR 1.011; 95% CI 1.002-1.020), previous DVT (OR 1.96; 95% CI 1.12-3.44) and obstruction of the device (OR 1.60; 95% CI 1.05-2.42) were independent factors associated with PICC-associated DVT, whereas the use of an anticoagulant regimen was a protective variable (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.54-0.99).
conclusionPICC is a safe and suitable intravenous device for medium and long-term therapy, with low rates of DVT even in a cohort of critically ill and cancer patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.