Safety, Efficacy, and Patient Satisfaction with Initial Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters Compared with Usual Intravenous Access in Terminally Ill Cancer Patients: A Randomized Phase II Study

• DOI: 10.4143/crt.2020.1008
• Publication Date: 2020-12-22T02:27:08Z
• Authors: Eun Ju Park; Kwonoh Park; Jae-Joon Kim; Sang-Bo Oh; Ki Sun Jung; So Yeon Oh; Yun Jeong Hong; Jin Hyeok Kim; Joo Yeon Jang; Ung-Bae Jeon
• Keywords: Aged, 80 and over; Male; Terminal Care; Palliative Care; Hospices; Antineoplastic Agents; Middle Aged; 3. Good health; 03 medical and health sciences; Treatment Outcome; 0302 clinical medicine; Patient Satisfaction; Neoplasms; Catheterization, Peripheral; Humans; Terminally Ill; Original Article; Administration, Intravenous; Female; Prospective Studies; Aged

Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate whether routine insertion of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) at admission to a hospice-palliative care (HPC) unit is acceptable in terms of safety and efficacy and whether it results in superior patient satisfaction compared to usual intravenous (IV) access.Materials and Methods Terminally ill cancer patients were randomly assigned to two arms: routine PICC access and usual IV access arm. The primary endpoint was IV maintenance success rate, defined as the rate of functional IV maintenance until the intended time (discharge, transfer, or death).Results A total of 66 terminally ill cancer patients were enrolled and randomized to study arms. Among them, 57 patients (routine PICC, 29; usual IV, 28) were analyzed. In the routine PICC arm, mean time to PICC was 0.84 days (range, 0 to 3 days), 27 patients maintained PICC with function until the intended time. In the usual IV arm, 11 patients maintained peripheral IV access until the intended time, and 15 patients underwent PICC insertion. The IV maintenance success rate in the routine PICC arm (27/29, 93.1%) was similar to that in the usual IV arm (26/28, 92.8%, p=0.958). Patient satisfaction at day 5 was better in the routine PICC arm (97%, ‘a little comfort’ or ‘much comfort’) compared with the usual IV arm (21%) (p <0.001). Conclusion Routine PICC insertion in terminally ill cancer patients was comparable in safety and efficacy and resulted in superior satisfaction compared with usual IV access. Thus, routine PICC insertion could be considered at admission to the HPC unit.