ArticleBMC surgery2026
Catheter-related thrombosis in cancer patients with tunnelled non-cuffed centrally inserted central catheters: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are widely used in oncology but are associated with higher rates of catheter-related thrombosis compared to other central venous access devices. Tunnelled non-cuffed centrally inserted central catheters (tnc-CICC) may offer a safer alternative in patient at high risk of thrombosis.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study evaluated 193 tnc-CICCs placed in 182 cancer patients at a tertiary oncology unit between January 2021 and December 2022. Primary outcomes is catheter-related thrombosis; secondary outcomes are procedural duration and complication rates. Data were analysed using non-parametric statistical methods.
resultsThe overall thrombosis rate was 1% (0.18 per 1,000 catheter days), significantly lower than reported PICC-associated thrombosis rates. No major intraoperative complications occurred. The overall complication rate was 19.7%, with catheter malfunction (9.3%), migration (5.2%) and bloodstream infections (4.1%) being the most common. Median procedural time was 34 min, with no significant difference based on operator experience.
conclusionsOff label use of PICCs as tnc-CICCs seems safe and effective. It provides an alternative to PICCs in oncology patients at high risk of thrombosis, even when placed by operators with low experience levels. These findings support the inclusion of tnc-CICCs in vascular access algorithms for cancer patient at high risk of thrombosis and suggest feasibility for nurse-led insertion programs.
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.