Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Complications associated with central and non-central venous catheters in a neonatal intensive care unit

Journal of Perinatology volume 32, pages 941–946 (2012)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Objective:

The objective of this study is to compare complication rates between peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and peripherally inserted non-central catheters (PINCCs) in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).

Study Design:

A retrospective, observational study was conducted. The PICCs were catheters whose tip terminated in the vena cavae, and PINCCs were defined as those whose tip fell short of this location. Complication rates were assessed using generalized estimating equations modeling.

Result:

A total of 91 PINCCs and 889 PICCs were placed in 750 neonates. In all, 44.0% of PINCCs had a major complication compared with 25.2% of PICCs (P=0.0001). The unadjusted (unadj.) complication rate among PINCCs was 51.7 per 1000 line days and 15.9 for PICCs (unadj. rate ratio: 3.25; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.32, 4.55). After adjusting for multiple confounders, the risk remained significantly higher for PINCCs (adjusted odds ratio: 2.41; 95% CI: 1.33, 4.37).

Conclusion:

The rate of associated complications with the use of PINCCs in the NICU population is more than twice that of the PICCs.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Janes M, Kalyn A, Pinelli J, Paes B . A randomized trial comparing peripherally inserted central venous catheters and peripheral intravenous catheters in infants with very low birth weight. J Pediatr Surg 2000; 35: 1040–1044.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Pettit J . Assessment of infants with peripherally inserted central catheters: Part 1. Detecting the most frequently occurring complications. Adv Neonatal Care 2002; 2: 304–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Pettit J . Assessment of infants with peripherally inserted central catheters: Part 2. Detecting less frequently occurring complications. Adv Neonatal Care 2003; 3: 14–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Liu H, Han T, Zheng Y, Tong X, Piao M, Zhang H . Analysis of complication rates and reasons for nonelective removal of PICCs in neonatal intensive care unit preterm infants. J Infus Nurs 2009; 32: 336–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Stark AR . American academy of pediatrics committee on fetus and newborn. Levels of neonatal care. Pediatrics 2004; 114: 1341–1347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Garner JS, Jarvis WR, Emori TG, Horan TC, Hughes JM . CDC definitions for nosocomial infections, 1988. Am J Infect Control 1988; 16: 128–140.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Horan TC, Andrus M, Dudeck MA . CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of health-care associated infection and criteria for specific types of infection in the acute care setting. Am J Infect Control 2008; 36: 309–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bizzarro MJ, Sabo B, Noonan M, Bonfiglio MP, Northrup V, Diefenbach K . A quality improvement initiative to reduce central line associated bloodstream infections in a neonatal intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010; 31: 241–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Tsai MH, Chu SM, Lien R, Huang HR, Wang JW, Chiang CC et al. Complications associated with 2 different types of percutaneously inserted central venous catheters in very low birth weight infants. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011; 32: 258–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Schulman J, Stricof R, Stevens TP, Horgan M, Gase K, Holzman IR et al. Statewide NICU central-line-associated bloodstream infection rates decline after bundles and checklists. Pediatrics 2011; 127: 436–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kaplan HC, Lannon C, Walsh MC, Donovan EF . Ohio statewide quality-improvement collaborative to reduce late-onset sepsis in preterm infants. Pediatrics 2011; 127: 427–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wirtschafter DD, Powers RJ, Pettit JS, Lee HC, Boscardin WJ, Ahmad Subeh M et al. Nosocomial Infection Reduction in VLBW infants with a statewide quality-improvement model. Pediatrics 2011; 127: 419–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Thiagarajan RR, Bratton SL, Gettmann T, Ramamoorthy C . Efficacy of peripherally inserted central venous catheters placed in noncentral veins. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1998; 152: 436–439.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Racadio JM, Doellman DA, Johnson ND, Bean JA, Jacobs BR . Pediatric peripherally inserted central catheters: complication rates related to catheter tip location. Pediatrics 2001; 107: E28.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Reynolds J . Comparison of percutaneous venous catheters and Teflon catheters for intravenous therapy in neonates. Neonatal Netw 1993; 12: 33–39.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lesser E, Chhabra R, Brion LP, Suresh BR . Use of midline catheters in low birth weight infants. J Perinatol 1996; 16: 205–207.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wyckoff MM . Midline catheter use in the premature and full-term infant. J Vasc Access Devices 1999; 4: 26–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dawson D . Midline catheters in neonatal patients: evaluating a change in practice. J Vasc Access Devices 2002; 7: 17–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Leick-Rude MK, Haney B . Midline catheter use in the intensive care nursery. Neonatal Netw 2006; 25: 189–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Chandavasu O, Garrow E, Valda V, Alsheikh S, Dela Vega S . A new method for the prevention of skin sloughs and necrosis secondary to intravenous infiltration. Am J Perinatol 1986; 3: 4–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kumar RJ, Pegg SP, Kimble RM . Management of extravasation injuries. ANZ J Surg 2001; 71: 285–289.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This publication was supported in part by the CTSA Grant Number UL1 RR024139 from the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research, and by the Glaser Pediatric Research Network and Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Grant number HD07094. Dr Colacchio was supported by the NICHD Grant number T32 HD 07094. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official view of NCRR, NIH or NICHD.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pediatrics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA

    K Colacchio & M J Bizzarro

  2. Yale Center for Analytical Sciences, New Haven, CT, USA

    Y Deng & V Northrup

Authors
  1. K Colacchio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Y Deng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. V Northrup
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M J Bizzarro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M J Bizzarro.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Colacchio, K., Deng, Y., Northrup, V. et al. Complications associated with central and non-central venous catheters in a neonatal intensive care unit. J Perinatol 32, 941–946 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2012.7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2012.7

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links