Advertisement

Which arm and vein are more appropriate for single-step, non-fluoroscopic, peripherally inserted central catheter insertion?

Which arm and vein are more appropriate for single-step, non-fluoroscopic, peripherally inserted central catheter insertion?

forthcoming

Article Type: ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Article Subject: Interventional radiology

DOI:10.5301/jva.5000506

Authors

Jeon, Eui-Yong Cho, Young K. Yoon, Dae Y. Hwang, Jin Ho

Abstract

We investigated which arm and vein led to the most successful outcomes during non-fluoroscopic peripherallyinserted central catheter (PICC) insertion.

A total of 743 cases from July 2012 to March 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. We also analyzed the following: 1) accessed arm (right or left), 2) accessed vein (cephalic, basilic, or brachial), 3) primary and secondary success rates, 4) causes of failure (location of obstacles), and 5) problemsolving methods for catheter repositioning.

The primary success rate was 46.3% (344/743) with 49.4% (123/249) on the right arm and 44.7% (273/494) on the left arm. The secondary success rate was 53.7% (399/743) with 50.6% (126/249) on the right arm and 55.3% (273/494) on the left arm. The causes of failure were 100% (43/43) for the left cephalic vein, 61.5% (8/13) for the right cephalic vein, 50.6% (43/85) for the left brachial vein, and 51.1% (23/45) for the right brachial vein, 51.1% (187/366) for the left basilic vein, and 49.7% (95/191) for the right basilic vein. The failure rate through the left cephalic vein was significantly higher than that for other veins. The most common locations of obstacles were the subclavian vein (28.8%, 115/399), axillary vein (24.3%, 97/399), and brachiocephalic vein (19.3%, 77/399). The most common problem-solving methods were with guidewire assistance (74.7%, 298/399), venographic guidance (13.8%, 55/399), and fluoroscopic guidance (11.5%, 46/399).

Right-arm access through the basilic or brachial vein may be more appropriate for successful nonfluoroscopic PICC insertion compared with the access through the left arm and the cephalic vein.

Article History

Disclosures

Financial support: This study was not supported by funding from any company or any grant from any hospital or other institute.
Conflict of interest: There are no financial conflicts of interest about this manuscript.

This article is available as full text PDF.

  • If you are a Subscriber, please log in now.

  • Article price: Eur 36,00
  • You will be granted access to the article for 72 hours and you will be able to download any format (PDF or ePUB). The article will be available in your login area under "My PayPerView". You will need to register a new account (unless you already own an account with this journal), and you will be guided through our online shop. Online purchases are paid by Credit Card through PayPal.
  • If you are not a Subscriber you may:
  • Subscribe to this journal
  • Unlimited access to all our archives, 24 hour a day, every day of the week.

Authors

  • Jeon, Eui-Yong [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 1
  • Cho, Young K. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 2, * Corresponding Author (ykchoman@naver.com)
  • Yoon, Dae Y. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 2
  • Hwang, Jin Ho [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 3

Affiliations

  • Department of Radiology, Sheikh Khalifa Specialty Hospital, Ras Al Khaimah - UAE
  • Department of Radiology, Hallym University College of Medicine, Kangdong Seong-Sim Hospital, Seoul - Korea
  • Department of Radiology, Hallym University College of Medicine, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Anyang - Korea

Article usage statistics

The blue line displays unique views in the time frame indicated.
The yellow line displays unique downloads.
Views and downloads are counted only once per session.

No supplementary material is available for this article.