Observational studyBMJ open2024
Performance and safety of PowerPICC catheters and accessories: a prospective observational study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04263649 (Prospective Observational Study of the Power PICC Family of Devices and Accessories), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Prospective Observational Study of the Power PICC Family of Devices and Accessories
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bringing the Line Home: A Perspective on Establishing At-Home PICC (Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter) Insertion in Oncology Patients.Clinics and practice · 2026Article
- Nursing Interventions to Prevent Complications in Patients with Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the safety and performance of PowerPICC catheters in a real-world setting.
designProspective, observational, multicentre study.
settingNine European countries, involving 14 centres.
participantsGeneral patient population.
interventionPowerPICC catheter inserted by the clinician as standard of care with routinely collected outcomes followed through device removal or 180 days postinsertion. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES MEASURES: Safety and performance outcomes were assessed for PowerPICC, PowerPICC SOLO 2 and PowerGroshong PICC. The primary safety endpoint was the incidence of symptomatic venous thrombosis (VT), and secondary safety endpoints included phlebitis, extravasation, vessel laceration, vessel perforation local infection, accidental dislodgment and catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI). The primary performance endpoint was the percentage of patients whose PowerPICC device remained in place through the completion of therapy. The secondary performance endpoints included catheter patency, placement success in a single attempt and usability.
resultsThe enrolled patients (N=451) received either PowerPICC, PowerPICC SOLO 2 or PowerGroshong PICC catheters. Across all devices, 1.6% of patients developed symptomatic VT, and CRBSI occurred in 1.6% of patients. There were no cases of phlebitis or extravasation and only three cases of vein laceration or vein perforation. The catheters showed high success rates in completing therapy (81.8%), maintaining patency (93.9%) and achieving successful placement in a single attempt (90.4%). Clinicians overwhelmingly agreed that both the guidewire and stylet (93.3% and 94.4%, respectively) were easy or very easy to use.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates the safety and performance of PowerPICC catheters across diverse settings and patient cohorts in real-world hospital settings across Europe. The findings indicate that these catheters are safe and can be effectively used in the general patient setting and when inserted by a variety of clinicians. The low incidence of complications and high success rates further support the clinical utility of these catheters. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04263649.
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.