Trial reportEuropean radiology2024
Safety and effectiveness of tunneled peripherally inserted central catheters versus conventional PICC in adult cancer patients.
Trial report in European radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Tunneled Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters and Bloodstream Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Pooled it
- Safety of totally implantable venous access devices and peripherally inserted central catheters in hematological malignancies patients: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Risk factors for catheter-related infections in neck tumor patients undergoing chemotherapy through peripherally inserted central catheters.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- A Comparison Between Two Different Directions of Landmark-Guided Femoral Vein Puncture: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.Anesthesiology research and practice · 2026Article
- Article
- Impact of subcutaneous tunnel length on infection risk in tunneled PICCs: a study in cancer patient.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Dislodgement Rates of Tunneled Femoral Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters in Pediatric Oncology Patients.Journal of infusion nursing : the official publication of the Infusion Nurses SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of tunneled peripherally inserted central catheters (T-PICC) vs. conventional PICCs (C-PICC) in adult cancer patients.
methodsA multicentre randomized controlled trial was conducted between April 2021 and January 2022 in seven hospitals in China. 564 participants were randomly assigned to T-PICC or C-PICC. These data were collected and compared: the baseline characteristics and catheterization-related characteristics, periprocedural complications, and long-term complications.
resultsFive-hundred fifty-three participants (aged, 52.6 ± 12.3 years; female, 39.1%) were ultimately analyzed. No significant differences in periprocedural complications were found between the T-PICC and C-PICC groups (all p > 0.05). Compared with C-PICC, T-PICC significantly reduced the incidence of long-term complications (26.4% vs. 39.9%, p < 0.001). Specifically, reduced complications were found in central line-associated bloodstream infection (1.8% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.04), thrombosis (1.1% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.03), catheter dislodgement (4.7% vs. 10.1%, p = 0.01), non-infectious oozing (17.3% vs. 28.6%, p = 0.002), local infection (3.6% vs. 7.6%, p = 0.04), skin irritation (6.1% vs. 10.9%, p = 0.046), and reduced unplanned catheter removal (2.2% vs. 7.2%, p = 0.005). No significant differences were found between T-PICC and C-PICC regarding catheter occlusion (6.5% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.73) or skin damage (2.2% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.58).
conclusionT-PICC is safe and effectively reduces long-term complications. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The tunneled technique is effective in reducing PICC-related long-term complications. Thus, it is recommended for cancer patients at high risk of PICC-related complications.
trial registrationThe registration number on https://www.chictr.org.cn/ is ChiCTR2100044632. The name of the trial registry is "A multicenter randomized controlled study of clinical use of tunneled vs. non-tunneled PICC". KEY POINTS: Cather-related complications are associated with the technique of catheterization. Compared with conventional PICC, tunneled PICC reduced catheter-related long-term complications. Tunneled PICC placement provides an alternative catheterization method for cancer patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38940828What 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.