Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Other
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Society of Nephrology
  • Other
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement
American Society of Nephrology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Visit ASN on Facebook
  • Follow CJASN on Twitter
  • CJASN RSS
  • Community Forum
Editorials
You have accessRestricted Access

Nephrologists Versus Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: Are the PICCs Winning?

Sean Kalloo and Jay B. Wish
CJASN August 2016, 11 (8) 1333-1334; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.05750516
Sean Kalloo
*Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jay B. Wish
†Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Indiana University Health, Indianapolis, Indiana
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF
Loading
  • vascular access
  • chronic kidney disease
  • end stage kidney disease
  • hemodialysis
  • Catheterization
  • Central Venous
  • Catheterization
  • Peripheral
  • Physicians

Because of their low rate of procedure-related complications, ease of placement, and favorable cost profile, peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) have increased in prevalence (1–3). In patients with difficult to obtain intravenous access, PICCs are a reasonable form of central venous access when repeated administration of intravenous therapy and/or phlebotomy is required. Although the use of PICCs may prove beneficial in many patient populations, there are complications related to PICC placement, including phlebitis, stenosis, and thrombosis of the involved veins (2).

Because of multiple comorbidities and the recurrent need for intravenous therapies, patients with AKI and patients with CKD are at risk to undergo PICC placement (4). Although this may provide benefit in the short term, the long-term outcomes related to these devices often prove to be deleterious. The dangers of PICCs in patients with CKD are well known, and multiple societies have created guidelines to limit the use of these devices in this vulnerable population. In 2012, the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation in partnership with Consumer Reports initiated the Choosing Wisely campaign to identify areas in patient care and resource use with the greatest opportunities for improvement. An advisory group from the American Society of Nephrology submitted recommendations for inclusion in this campaign. One of the five recommendations of the group was not to place PICCs in patients with CKD stages 3–5 without consulting a nephrologist (5). The National Kidney Foundation Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative guidelines for vascular access state that, in patients with CKD stage 4 or 5, forearm and upper arm veins suitable for placement of vascular access should not be used for venipuncture or the placement of intravenous catheters, subclavian catheters, or peripherally inserted central catheter lines (6).

The Fistula First Breakthrough Initiative (FFBI) also recommends against PICC use in patients at risk for or with known midstage 3 CKD, stage 4 or 5 CKD, or ESRD or if the patient is a renal transplant patient (7). The FFBI offers an alternative management strategy: a small bore central catheter (SBCC) in the internal jugular (IJ) vein is recommended. SBCCs can last longer than PICCs, can be easily replaced, and have fewer complications for the period of time needed. Sasadeusz et al. (8) examined 34 patients with CKD in whom SBCCs were placed via the IJ or external jugular vein as a vein-preserving alternative to PICCs. No evidence of symptomatic central venous thrombosis or stenosis was observed. Unlike a PICC, an IJ line does not traverse the subclavian vein, thus eliminating trauma to this vessel and future stenosis. This method makes it less likely to limit the usefulness of a permanent hemodialysis vascular access placed in the ipsilateral arm.

The future availability of suitable vasculature for hemodialysis arteriovenous access creation must invariably be addressed by the nephrologist in patients with later stages of CKD. Recognizing that PICCs can damage vessels and render them unusable for dialysis is an important aspect of care. Shingarev and Allon (9) showed that PICCs are associated with high rates of upper extremity venous thrombosis and residual central venous stenosis. Chopra et al. (1), in a meta-analysis, reported that PICCs were strongly associated with deep venous thrombosis but not pulmonary embolism. Allen et al. (10) found a relatively high rate of venous thrombosis associated with PICCs, particularly cephalic thrombus. Allen et al. (10) recommended that all patients with a history of PICC placement requiring dialysis access undergo upper extremity venography before the placement of permanent access.

In the article by McGill et al. (11) in this issue of the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, the authors present a well designed study to systematically explore the hypothesis that PICCs adversely affect outcomes in patients on dialysis with respect to vascular access and patient survival. Because it is impossible to perform a randomized trial comparing patients who have received PICCs with those who have not, McGill et al. (11) have chosen to perform a retrospective study of all Medicare beneficiaries who began dialysis with a hemodialysis catheter between April of 2010 and December of 2011. McGill et al. (11) attempt to correct for confounding by using adjusted hazard ratios to show differences in outcomes between patients who had PICC(s) placed and those who had not. As McGill et al. (11) point out in their limitations, this method is always subject to confounding by indication, namely that there were variables not examined that may have precipitated PICCs placement and also led to adverse outcomes. McGill et al. (11) attempt to include all comorbidities from predialysis Medicare claims 2 years before dialysis initiation rather than those just on the 2728 form, the former being a significantly more reliable method of capturing comorbidities.

The result that PICCs placed predialysis resulted in poorer vascular access outcomes is expected and validates the hypothesis that PICCs scar the vessels that are required for effective arteriovenous fistula and arteriovenous graft functionality. PICCs are placed predialysis for a variety of indications, and many are placed without the knowledge of the nephrologist. Hence, there is a need for the interventionalists who place the lines to adhere to previously mentioned guidelines. There may be significant confounding by indication, because PICCs are placed in patients with the poorest vessels who also have the poorest outcomes for successful permanent hemodialysis vascular access. McGill et al. (11) did not show an increased adjusted hazard ratio for death among all patients who had PICC(s) placed predialysis, but the reported mortality rates among patients who achieved a working arteriovenous fistula or arteriovenous graft were alarmingly high (56.4% with PICC exposure and 44.8% without PICC exposure). This may be caused by the mean age of the population studied (71.2 years old with PICC exposure and 72.8 years old without), because all were Medicare eligible. This very high mortality rate limits the generalizability of the study to the entire hemodialysis population; however, it does allow for the identification of a subgroup of patients who may benefit even more from the avoidance of these devices.

In the clinical setting, PICCs are placed in patients on dialysis primarily for antibiotics and nutritional support. The need for antibiotics is not accounted for in the baseline patient characteristics that were adjusted for, and the higher mortality among the patients requiring a PICC after dialysis initiation for antibiotic administration almost certainly represents confounding by indication. McGill et al. (11) rightfully point out that PICC placement in a catheter-dependent patient on hemodialysis may indicate clinical situations in which the short-term risk of death is particularly high.

A significant and concerning finding was that numerous patient on hemodialysis (about 2000) received a postdialysis initiation PICC for any reason. These patients were under the care of a nephrologist who presumably was consulting in the hospital and collecting a monthly capitation payment on the patients when they were not in the hospital. The primary nephrology team’s involvement and guidance in the clinical management of patients on hemodialysis receiving PICCs is highly suspect on the basis of these outcomes. The nephrologist certainly recognizes the consequences associated with PICC placement and dialysis access survival. Nonetheless, the large number of patients on hemodialysis undergoing PICC placement in the study by McGill et al. (11) suggests a gross deficiency among many nephrologists in providing a safety net to prevent this procedure. In many patients on hemodialysis, central venous access can be avoided altogether if the nephrologist is involved in choosing an antibiotic regimen that can be administered while the patient is receiving dialysis.

Nephrologists must accept the responsibility for protecting patients’ venous real estate both before and after hemodialysis initiation. The disastrous effects of PICCs are clear, alternate strategies are available, and guidelines are established to support nephrology input and guidance. It is almost inconceivable that thousands of patients on hemodialysis in the United States continue to receive PICCs under their nephrologists’ watch. This is a battle that should have been won already but will clearly require a reinvigorated effort to overcome the path of least resistance that PICCs seem to offer. This includes renewed educational initiatives directed at interventionalists, nephrologists, patients, and their caregivers. The lifeline of hemodialysis vascular access is under assault from PICCs. Only a coordinated educational effort directed all stakeholders and a change in practice mentality will ultimately allow the lifeline to prevail.

Disclosures

None.

Footnotes

  • Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.cjasn.org.

  • See related article, “Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters and Hemodialysis Outcomes,” on pages 1434–1440.

  • Copyright © 2016 by the American Society of Nephrology

References

  1. ↵
    1. Chopra V,
    2. Flanders SA,
    3. Saint S
    : The problem with peripherally inserted central catheters. JAMA 308: 1527–1528, 2012
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Royer T
    : Nurse-driven interventional technology. A cost and benefit perspective. J Infus Nurs 24: 326–331, 2001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Edström SK,
    2. Lindqvist T,
    3. Rosengren K
    : More benefits than problems a study regarding patients’ experiences with a PICC-line during cancer treatment. Home Health Care Manage Pract 28: 101–108, 2016
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. ↵
    1. McGill RL,
    2. Tsukahara T,
    3. Bhardwaj R,
    4. Kapetanos AT,
    5. Marcus RJ
    : Inpatient venous access practices: PICC culture and the kidney patient. J Vasc Access 16: 206–210, 2015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Williams AW,
    2. Dwyer AC,
    3. Eddy AA,
    4. Fink JC,
    5. Jaber BL,
    6. Linas SL,
    7. Michael B,
    8. O’Hare AM,
    9. Schaefer HM,
    10. Shaffer RN,
    11. Trachtman H,
    12. Weiner DE,
    13. Falk AR
    ; American Society of Nephrology Quality, and Patient Safety Task Force: Critical and honest conversations: The evidence behind the “Choosing Wisely” campaign recommendations by the American Society of Nephrology. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 7: 1664–1672, 2012
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    Vascular Access 2006 Work Group: Clinical practice guidelines for vascular access. Am J Kidney Dis 48[Suppl 1]: S176–S246, 2006
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    Fistula First Breakthrough Initiative: National Vascular Access Improvement Initiative. Available at: http://www.fistulafirst.org/. Accessed May 16, 2016
  8. ↵
    1. Sasadeusz KJ,
    2. Trerotola SO,
    3. Shah H,
    4. Namyslowski J,
    5. Johnson MS,
    6. Moresco KP,
    7. Patel NH
    : Tunneled jugular small-bore central catheters as an alternative to peripherally inserted central catheters for intermediate-term venous access in patients with hemodialysis and chronic renal insufficiency. Radiology 213: 303–306, 1999
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Shingarev R,
    2. Allon M
    : Peripherally inserted central catheters and other intravascular devices: How safe are they for hemodialysis patients? Am J Kidney Dis 60: 510–513, 2012
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Allen AW,
    2. Megargell JL,
    3. Brown DB,
    4. Lynch FC,
    5. Singh H,
    6. Singh Y,
    7. Waybill PN
    : Venous thrombosis associated with the placement of peripherally inserted central catheters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 11: 1309–1314, 2000
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. McGill RL,
    2. Ruthazer R,
    3. Meyer KB,
    4. Miskulin DC,
    5. Weiner DE
    : Peripherally inserted central catheters and hemodialysis outcomes. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 11: 1434–1440, 2016
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: 11 (8)
Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Vol. 11, Issue 8
August 08, 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Sign up for Alerts
Email Article
Thank you for your help in sharing the high-quality science in CJASN.
Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Nephrologists Versus Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: Are the PICCs Winning?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Society of Nephrology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Society of Nephrology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Nephrologists Versus Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: Are the PICCs Winning?
Sean Kalloo, Jay B. Wish
CJASN Aug 2016, 11 (8) 1333-1334; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.05750516

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Nephrologists Versus Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: Are the PICCs Winning?
Sean Kalloo, Jay B. Wish
CJASN Aug 2016, 11 (8) 1333-1334; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.05750516
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Disclosures
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Measuring Patient Experience with Home Dialysis in the United States
  • The Promise and Challenge of Aerobic Exercise in People Undergoing Long-Term Hemodialysis
  • Therapeutic Options to Improve Cardiovascular Outcomes with Long-Term Hemodialysis
Show more Editorials

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters and Hemodialysis Outcomes
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Keywords

  • vascular access
  • chronic kidney disease
  • end stage kidney disease
  • hemodialysis
  • Catheterization
  • Central Venous
  • Peripheral
  • Physicians

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Early Access
  • Subject Collections
  • Article Archive
  • ASN Meeting Abstracts

Information for Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Trainee of the Year
  • Author Resources
  • ASN Journal Policies
  • Reuse/Reprint Policy

About

  • CJASN
  • ASN
  • ASN Journals
  • ASN Kidney News

Journal Information

  • About CJASN
  • CJASN Email Alerts
  • CJASN Key Impact Information
  • CJASN Podcasts
  • CJASN RSS Feeds
  • Editorial Board

More Information

  • Advertise
  • ASN Podcasts
  • ASN Publications
  • Become an ASN Member
  • Feedback
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Password/Email Address Changes
  • Subscribe to ASN Journals

© 2021 American Society of Nephrology

Print ISSN - 1555-9041 Online ISSN - 1555-905X

Powered by HighWire