Retrospective cohort analysis comparing the incidence of deep vein thromboses between peripherally-inserted and long-term skin tunneled venous catheters in hemato-oncology XXXX .

@entity1 @entity715 @entity1583 @entity281
BACKGROUND: The introduction of central venous catheters has advanced medical care, particularly in hemato-oncology. However these can be associated with an increased @entity715 risk. Previous studies have compared the rate of @entity715 events between peripherally- inserted (PICCs) and long term skin tunneled catheters (LTSTCs) noting fewer complications associated with the latter, though this has rarely translated into clinical practice. The objectives of our study was to compare the cumulative incidence of @entity715 events between peripherally-inserted and long term skin tunneled venous catheters. @entity1 /METHODS: We performed a retrospective, single center cohort analysis of @entity1 with @entity1583 who had either a PICC or LTSTC line inserted between January 2010 through January 2013. Cumulative incidences of @entity715 events were compared between the two groups, and post- @entity715 complications were also examined. RESULTS: 346 @entity1 had a PICC inserted with cumulative incidence of symptomatic @entity715 of 5.8%, while 237 @entity1 had a LTSTC inserted with a cumulative incidence of 1.7% (p   =   0.003). Post- @entity715 complication rates, particularly @entity281 , were higher in the PICC group compared to the LTSTC group (p   =   0.597). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that the incidence of @entity715 events in hemato-oncology @entity1 was significantly lower in those who had a LTSTC compared to PICC line. As the use of central venous lines increases in hemato-oncology @entity1 care, a randomized trial comparing PICCs and LTSTCs is necessary to address which venous access is most appropriate in this cohort of @entity1 , with minimal risk of morbidity and mortality.
