ArticleCureus2024
Upper Limb Deep Venous Thrombosis Associated With Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters in Hospitalised Surgical Patients.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Experience in treating thrombosis after adjustment of a PICC catheter.Radiology case reports · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Surgical inpatients frequently require peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) for parenteral feeding and administration of medication. PICCs may cause upper limb deep venous thrombosis (ULDVT), which impacts patient morbidity. We investigated the risk and prevention of PICC-ULDVT in hospitalised surgical inpatients. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of 168 consecutive surgical inpatients who received a PICC over the same four-year period. Data from 136 additional consecutive general medical inpatients with PICCs over the same period were included for comparison. We observed and compared the incidence of ULDVT confirmed on dedicated upper limb venous imaging in the cohort of surgical patients compared to a time matched cohort of medical patients. We extracted data including patient demographics, details of admission, and insertion site of the PICC from the hospital electronic notes. Results The incidence of ULDVT in surgical patients was 4.7% compared to 1.5% in medical patients despite increased age (p=0.001) and comorbidity burden (p=0.001) in the latter group. Ninety percent of surgical patients had abdominal surgery within 30 days of PICC placement. Regression multivariate analysis identified concurrent cancer (p=0.048), median Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) (p=0.034), admission with malignant bowel obstruction (p=0.002), and catheter insertion into the brachial vein (p=0.033) as significant risk factors for PICC-ULDVT in hospitalised surgical patients. Standard pharmacological venous thromboembolic events (VTE) prophylaxis, as per national guidelines, did not reduce the risk of PICC-ULDVT. Conclusion Our study indicates that surgical inpatients are at greater risk of developing PICC-associated upper limb deep vein thrombosis (ULDVT) compared to medical inpatients, with limited evidence supporting the effectiveness of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in reducing this risk. PICCs should be used with caution in patients with cancer, cancer-related bowel obstruction, and surgical patients with a higher comorbidity index. PICCs inserted via the basilic vein may reduce ULDVT risk, but further studies are needed on the preferential site of insertion in surgical 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.