ArticleBMC anesthesiology2026
Peripherally inserted central catheters versus central venous catheters in critically ill patients under standardized insertion protocols: a propensity score-matched cohort study.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe safety of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) in critically ill patients remains controversial, particularly regarding the risk of thrombosis and infection compared with centrally inserted central venous catheters (CVCs). With the adoption of contemporary vascular access techniques and standardized insertion protocols, the complication profile of these devices may have changed.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study including adult ICU patients who underwent PICC or CVC placement between January 2023 and December 2024. All insertions followed standardized protocols (Safe Insertion of PICCs and Safe Insertion of Central Venous Catheters). Propensity score matching (1:2) was performed to balance baseline characteristics. Primary outcomes were symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI). Secondary outcomes included catheter dislodgement and occlusion.
resultsA total of 250 patients were included, and 214 remained after propensity score matching (81 PICC vs. 133 CVC). Symptomatic DVT occurred in 2.5% of PICC patients and 3.0% of CVC patients. The corresponding incidence rates were 2.16 and 2.68 events per 1,000 catheter-days, respectively. CLABSI occurred in 2.5% and 2.3% of patients, corresponding to 2.16 and 2.01 events per 1,000 catheter-days, respectively. Because the number of outcome events was small, these estimates were associated with substantial statistical uncertainty.
conclusionsIn this single-center matched cohort, no statistically significant differences in symptomatic DVT or CLABSI were observed between PICCs and CVCs. However, the small number of outcome events limited statistical power. These findings should be interpreted as exploratory and hypothesis-generating rather than as evidence of equivalence between catheter types.
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.