Catheter-related thrombosis in cancer patients with tunnelled non-cuffed centrally inserted central catheters: a retrospective cohort study.

Background

Central venous access is essential for cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, as it minimizes caustic damage to peripheral veins and facilitates frequent blood sampling. Unfortunately, central venous access is associated with thrombosis. Catheter-related venous thrombosis leads to treatment delays, a reduction in patient quality of life and an increase in healthcare costs [ 1 – 4 ]. Compared to totally implantable venous access devise and tunnelled cuffed centrally inserted central catheters, peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) have a higher risk of thrombosis [ 5 ]. This is caused by the small vein size at the insertion site and the long and winding intravascular tractjectory [ 5 ]. Still, many oncologists prefer PICCs as central venous access device because of the ease of insertion as well as removal and the low costs [ 3 , 6 ].

A possible strategy to reduce the risk of thrombosis while maintaining many of the advantages of a PICC is the “off-label” use of PICCs, by inserting them as tunnelled non-cuffed centrally inserted central catheters (tnc-CICCs), also known as ‘atypical’ PICC [ 7 , 8 ]. This technique was first described in small infants to avoid the small peripheral veins [ 7 , 9 , 10 ]. More recently, 2 small cohort studies in adults showed that the technique is safe, well accepted and has low complication rates [ 11 , 12 ]. Lastly, one study by Tran et al. showed a reduction in catheter-related thrombosis when using tnc-CICCs compared to PICCs in a haematology population [ 4 ]. Yet, the impact of tnc-CICCs on thrombosis in other types of malignancies has not been reported.

This retrospective study aims to evaluate tnc-CICC use in a specific oncology and haematology population at high risk of thrombosis at a tertiary oncology referral unit. We hypothesise that tnc-CICCs are less prone to venous thrombosis and mechanical problems, with little increase in technical complications. This cohort study is reported in line with the STROCSS guidelines [ 13 ].

Methods and materials

Population and setting

Data for this retrospective cohort study were collected from January 2021 until December 2022 from the University Hospitals Leuven electronic patient records. The University Hospitals Leuven is a large tertiary academic teaching facility, running a dedicated multidisciplinary and interprofessional vascular access team, consisting of surgical oncologists, vascular surgeons, interventional radiologists and specialist nurses. This team inserts approximately 1500 PICCs and 250 tunnelled cuffed and non-cuffed catheters yearly. Complications are managed by a vascular access nurse-specialist team.

tnc-CICCs are mainly inserted for 2 indications. The first indication is autologous stem cell transplantation, for which a large-bore (6 French) double-lumen central catheter is needed to ensure rapid infusion of stem cells [ 4 , 5 ]. The second indication is ovarian cancer and germline tumours, which are both tumour types associated with a high risk of venous thrombosis [ 5 , 14 , 15 ]. Of note, a third indication, which is not tumour type-related, is the inaccessibility of peripheral veins for PICC insertion.

Adult cancer patients who underwent a tnc-CICC insertion were included into this trial. Patients under 18 years of age, catheters inserted in the inferior vena cava and patients who were not treated for a malignancy were excluded.

Data collection and definitions

Data on patient demographics (age, BMI, diagnosis), insertion (insertion side, operator experience), device (size, brand, number of lumina) and catheter dwell time were collected. Study data were collected and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools hosted at Yale University [ 16 , 17 ].

The primary outcome is catheter-related venous thrombosis, defined as any symptomatic thrombotic event in a vein containing a catheter. In case of a thrombosis, patient files were also screened for embolic events. Secondary outcomes are procedural duration and intra- and postoperative complications. Procedural time was defined as the time from door-to-door, i.e. including patient transfer and preparation. Patient files were screened for any complication related to the tnc-CICC such as but not limited to haematoma, pneumothorax, haemothorax, thrombosis, infection, catheter migration and catheter malfunction. Catheter function was evaluated using the ‘Catheter Injection and Aspiration” (CINAS) classification tool [ 18 ]. Diagnosis of central line-associated blood stream infection was based on the description of any infectious episode attributed to the presence of the catheter by the treating physicians. Differential time to positivity was not available from the patients’ files, so a confirmation of catheter-related blood stream infection could not be made. Catheter malposition was defined as an abnormal tip position. The surgical experience of the operator level was divided into 3 levels: surgical trainees have a maximum of 6 years of surgical experience, fellows 7–8 years and senior staff > 8 years. Most surgical trainees have limited to no experience in vascular access surgery, when joining the department of Surgical Oncology. Before they are allowed to insert catheters, they get a theoretical and dry lab training under supervision of an experienced operator.

Surgical technique

The applied technique is like the techniques described by Bernasconi or Lawson in children [ 7 , 10 ]. Catheters are inserted under local anaesthesia, in a dedicated operating room. No antibiotics are administered. A single-lumen (Medcomp ® , Pro-PICC CT, 5 French) or double lumen (BBraun ® , Celsite PICC-cel, 6 French/ Medcomp ® , Pro-PICC CT, 5 French) polyurethane catheter was used. The internal jugular vein or brachiocephalic vein is approached using an in-plane short-axis real time ultra-sound guided vein puncture. The catheter is tunnelled from the infraclavicular region (exit site) to the venotomy site, using a BD Angiocath ® 10 Gauge needle with an antegrade technique (Fig. 1 A, B). A modified Seldinger technique is used to insert the catheter into the vein using a micro-introducer set. Guided by intra-operative fluoroscopy, the catheter tip is positioned two vertebrae below the bronchial carina (Fig. 1 C) [ 19 ]. The catheter is then secured with an appropriately sized subcutaneous anchoring device (Securacath ® )(Fig. 1 D) and the exit site is covered with a gauze dressing. The neck incision is closed using steristrips (Fig. 1 E). Catheters are locked with a 0.9% sodium chloride solution. No peri-operative anti-coagulants are administered. The postoperative care is the same as described in guidelines for PICC [ 20 ].

Fig. 1 tnc-CICC insertion technique, ( A , B ) Tunnelling technique, ( C ) Fluoroscopic tip positioning, ( D ) Subcutaneous anchoring device, ( E ) Dressing

Statistical analysis

Given the retrospective nature of the study, no sample size calculation was performed. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS (IBM v29). Categorical variables are presented as frequencies and percentages, and continuous variables as medians with interquartile range (Q1-Q3). Group comparisons on continuous variables were performed using the Kruskal Wallis test for the comparison of more than 2 groups. The analysis was performed on the number of devices.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was obtained on 02-06-2022 from the University hospitals Leuven Ethics Committee for research (S66620). The study was performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations as described in the declaration of Helsinki. Due to the retrospective nature of the study, no informed consent was attained in concordance with the advice of our ethics committee.

Results and discussion

A total of 193 tnc-CICCs were inserted in 182 patients. Eleven out of 182 patients (6%) underwent a second procedure, 6 of which occurred during the first treatment episode due to catheter-related complications ( n = 2), inadvertent dislodgement ( n = 3), or erroneous catheter type placement (single-lumen instead of double-lumen) ( n = 1). An additional five patients required a second treatment episode for disease recurrence or tandem autologous stem cell transplantation.

Patient, device and procedural characteristics (Table 1 )

Table 1 Patient, device and procedural characteristics Patient and device characteristics Variables Stem cel transplantation n (%) Chemotherapy, n (%) Total, n (%) Gender ( N = 182) 85 (46,7) 97 (53,3) Female 32 (37,7) 82 (84,5) 114 (62,6) Male 53 (62,3) 15 (15,5) 68 (37,4) Diagnosis ( N = 182) Hematologic malignancy 85 (46,7) Multiple myeloma 49 (59,8) Acute lymphoma 29 (35,4) 3 (3,1) Monoclonal Gammopathy 2 (2,4) Plasmacytoma 2 (2,4) Solid tumour 97 (53,3) Gynaecologic 2 (2,4) 73 (75,3) 75 (41,2) Germ line (seminoma/non-seminoma) 1 (1,2) 14 (14,4) 15 (8,2) Gastro-intestinal 1 (1) 1 (0.6) Breast 6 (6,2) 6 (3.3) Therapy ( N = 182) Autologous stem cell transplantation 85 (100) 85 (46,7) Taxol-Carboplatin (q1w18) 40 (41,2) 40 (22,0) Bleomycin-etoposide-cisplatin (q3w3) 15 (15,5) 15 (8,2) Cisplatin (q1w6) 28 (28,9) 28 (15,4) Other 14 (14,4) 14 (7,7) Catheter type ( N = 193) Medcomp ® , Pro-PICC CT, 5 Fr, Single lumen 1 (1,1) 98 (97) 99 (51.3) BBraun ® , Celsite PICC-cel, 6Fr, Double lumen 91 (98,9) 2 (2) 93 (48,2) Medcomp ® , Pro-PICC CT, 5 Fr, Double lumen 1 (1) 1 (0,5) Side of insertion ( N = 193) Left 42 (45,7) 49 (48,5) 102 (52.8) Right 50 (54,3) 52 (51,5) 91 (47.2) Surgical experience ( N = 193) Staff 39 (42,4) 39 (38,6) 78 (40.4) Fellow 33 (35,9) 27 (26,7) 60 (31.1) Trainee 20 (21,7) 35 (34,7) 55 (28.5)

The median age was 30 years (44.8–66.1), with a median BMI of 25.6 kg/m² (23.1–29.2). Patients ( N = 182) were grouped based on treatment indication: chemotherapy ( n = 97) or autologous stem cell transplantation ( n = 85). The chemotherapy group was predominantly female (84.5%), consistent with the high prevalence of gynaecological malignancies, while the transplantation group had a slight male majority (62.3%). Gynaecological or germ cell cancers accounted for 89.7% of chemotherapy cases, and 96.4% of transplantations were performed for haematological malignancies. Device selection aligned with clinical needs: single-lumen catheters were used in the chemotherapy group, while double-lumen catheters were placed for stem cell transplantation. The median catheter dwell time across the cohort was 39 days (Q1 21–Q3 83). As expected, dwell times differed significantly between the chemotherapy group (median 73 days, Q1 52 –Q3 128) and transplantation group (median 21 days, Q1 20 –Q3 24.5)( p < 0.001). A total of 11,318 catheter days were recorded.

Intraoperative outcomes and technical performance

Intraoperative outcomes were uniformly favourable. No major complications, such as arterial puncture, pneumothorax, or haemothorax occurred. All catheter tips were correctly positioned during insertion. These findings challenge long-standing perceptions that central catheter insertion is inherently more complex or risk-prone than PICC insertion [ 21 ]. We attribute this to several key factors: the use of real-time ultrasound guidance for vein puncture, standardized insertion protocols, rigorous operator training, and real-time tip position confirmation. These safeguards likely mitigated the risks typically associated with central venous access, even though many operators had limited experience.

A key advantage of PICCs has been their nurse-led placement, improving accessibility and reducing costs. However, the low complication rates in our cohort—even with inexperienced operators—suggest that, given proper training, nurses could safely perform CICC insertions as well. This is supported by the study of Alexandrou et al., who previously demonstrated that nurse-led CICC insertions are safe and even associated with lower infection rates than those performed by medical staff [ 22 ].

The median procedural duration was 34 min (Q1: 24, Q3: 41). The median operation duration was 31 min (23-38.3) for senior staff, 34.5 min (22-42.5) for fellows and 36 min (30–42) for trainees. There was no significant difference in procedural duration based on operator experience ( p = 0.09).(Fig. 2 ) Procedure duration in our study was longer compared to those typically reported for PICC insertion, which range from 8 to 26 min [ 23 – 26 ]. This time difference may reflect the inherently greater complexity of tnc-CICC placement. However, several study-specific factors likely contributed to the extended times observed. Most reports measure skin-to-skin duration, whereas this study recorded door-to-door times, which include patient preparation and transfer. Additionally, the teaching hospital setting, operator inexperience, and cases involving concurrent procedures or priorly failed PICC attempts may have further prolonged procedural duration. Our Insertion protocol may be further optimised by using intracavitary ECG as tip positioning method better aligning with current guidelines. This may further shorten the insertion duration. We expect only slightly longer operation duration of tnc-CICC than PICC in comparable situations.

Fig. 2 Comparison of procedural duration between operator experience

Postoperative complications and catheter safety (Table 2 )

A total of 38 complications occurred in 37 catheter insertions, resulting in an overall complication rate of 3.4 per 1,000 catheter days. This complication rate of 19.7% is lower compared to the 30% overall complication rate reported by Chopra et al. with PICC in oncology patients [ 3 ]. Eleven catheters out of 193 catheters (5.7%) were removed before therapy completion due to dislodgement ( n = 5), infection ( n = 5), thrombosis ( n = 1), mechanical failure ( n = 1) and 1 case involving both thrombosis and migration. These numbers are lower than the reported rate of PICC failure in oncology patients, which is 12.5% [ 3 , 27 ].

Table 2 Complications Thrombosis n (%) Migration n (%) CLABSI n (%) Malfunction n (%) Total n (%) Stem cell transplantation 0 (0) 8 (8.7) 2 (2.2) 3 (3,3) 13 (14.1) Chemotherapy 2 (2) 2 (2.0) 6 (5.9) 15 (14.9) 25 (24.7) Total 2 (1) 10 (5.2) 8 (4.1) 18 (9.3) 38 (19.7)

Catheter-related thrombosis occurred in 2 out of 193 catheters (1%), both in the chemotherapy group. This corresponds to an incidence of 0.18 per 1000 catheter days overall, and 0.22 per 1000 catheter days within the chemotherapy subgroup. The longer dwell time in the chemotherapy group may partially explain the higher observed incidence of venous thrombosis. One case involved a catheter tip thrombus complicated with endocarditis, requiring early catheter removal and anticoagulation. The second case presented with internal jugular vein thrombosis, manifesting as cervical swelling and pain, managed conservatively with anticoagulation therapy.

Globally, the study population represents a cohort with a particularly high baseline risk for catheter-related venous thrombosis, as all patients were actively receiving chemotherapy, which is known to increase thrombosis risk by up to 6.5-fold [ 28 , 29 ]. Furthermore, the underlying malignancies were predominantly haematological, gynaecological, or germline in origin known to be associated with increased venous thrombotic risk. In haematological malignancies, thrombosis rates can reach up to 34% in the context of central venous access for stem cell transplantation [ 4 , 30 ]. Gynaecological cancers, such as ovarian and endometrial carcinoma, are associated with venous thromboembolism rates of 11–25%, while germline tumours, especially those treated with cisplatin, have thrombosis rates of 10–15% [ 5 , 15 , 31 ]. Still, our thrombosis rate is lower than the reported PICC related thrombosis in adult oncology patients of up to 7.8% in haematologic patients and 2.2–5.9% in oncologic populations [ 3 , 4 , 27 , 32 ]. Even when only considering the chemotherapy group, 0.2 thrombosis /1000 catheter days is a quarter of the reported thrombosis rates with PICC of 0.9/1000 catheter days a study by Bertoglio [ 27 ]. Although in recent years some technical improvements in catheter insertion techniques have been shown to reduce the risk of PICC related thrombosis to 3–6%, this remains higher than our tnc-CICC related thrombosis rate [ 21 , 33 , 34 ]. Similar to our results, Tran et al. reported a thrombosis rate of 0.4% with tnc-CICCs in a population of paediatric haematology patients [ 4 ]. These results support our hypothesis that tnc-CICCs lead to a lower risk of venous thrombosis compared to PICCs. The lower thrombosis risk is likely due to several factors. Insertion in large central veins with higher blood flow and a lower catheter-to-vein ratio reduces stasis and vessel wall irritation. Also, the shorter and less winding intravascular trajectory reduces vein wall damage. Lastly, the use of subcutaneous tunnelling provides mechanical stability and a barrier against infection—both known as contributors to thrombosis. Of note is that tunnelling PICCs also reduces the risk of thrombosis [ 35 ].

Bloodstream infections occurred at a rate of 0.7 per 1,000 catheter days in our study. This is lower than the rates reported for PICCs in cancer patients, typically ranging between 1.0 and 7.7 per 1,000 catheter days [ 3 , 36 ]. In a similar population of haematology patients, Caris et al. reported an infection rate of 4.0 per 1000 catheter days [ 37 ]. Alexandrou et al. demonstrated that infections could be significantly reduced with structured insertion protocols and experienced operators, which very likely also contributed to the favourable outcomes in this study [ 22 ]. The tunnelled nature of tnc-CICCs probably provides a protective barrier against skin flora migration, further lowering infection risk.

In our cohort catheter malfunction was observed in 18 out of 193 catheters (9.3%), corresponding to 1.6 events per 1,000 catheter days. Malfunctions included 6 complete occlusions (IN3AS3) and 12 cases of withdrawal occlusion (11 IN1AS3, one IN1AS2). Four catheters were removed because therapy had been completed at the time of malfunction. All other malfunctions were successfully managed with thrombolytic therapy (urokinase). In comparison, literature reports PICCs to be associated with higher malfunction rates of up to 30% in oncology settings [ 1 ]. The use of larger bore catheters (5–6 Fr) compared to most studies on PICCs using 4 Fr catheters might in part explain this difference. No previous data on catheter malfunction in tnc-CICC has been published.

In this study, PICCs were used as tnc‑CICCs, constituting off‑label use, as the instructions for use specify peripheral insertion and do not address tunnelling. PICC lines are used since no dedicated non-cuffed catheter is available for longer-term central venous access. Although acute central venous catheters could be used, this would also be off-label as they are not validated for prolonged use, and standard CICC insertion kits do not include the micro-introducer systems preferred for the modified Seldinger technique. This deviation from the intended use may alter the device’s safety profile. The present study provides important data on the safety of this practice in a clinical setting. Under the European Medical Device Regulation (EU) 2017/745, such use places increased responsibility on healthcare professionals and institutions to ensure a well‑documented risk–benefit assessment, appropriate documentation, and adequate follow‑up.

This study has several methodological strengths. It represents a relatively large real-world cohort with detailed prospective data collection on both surgical outcomes and complications over more than 11,000 catheter days. The inclusion of high-risk oncology populations—such as patients with haematological, gynaecological, and germline malignancies—enhances the clinical relevance of our findings, particularly regarding thrombosis risk. Moreover, all procedures were performed using a standardized technique with ultrasound and real time tip positioning. However, the study also has limitations. It is a single-centre study, conducted in a teaching hospital setting, which may affect generalizability, especially regarding procedure duration and operator experience. The observational design limits causal inferences, and some complications very likely have been underreported, e.g. if they occurred after catheter removal or outside of the follow-up period. A last limitation is the time effect of the used techniques. During the study period fluoroscopy was used to determine the catheter tip position although nowadays intracavitary ECG is advised as primary tip positioning method. Intracavitary ECG is feasible with tnc-CICC insertion, and we would advise this technique over fluoroscopy in the future. While this part of the technique may be outdated, the tip position was accurately determined and did not influence the results of our study. Lastly the retrospective character of the study impairs direct comparison to PICC or t-PICC. Despite these limitations, our findings offer valuable insights into the safety and particularly the thrombosis profile of tnc-CICCs in high-risk oncology patients.

Many of the benefits historically ascribed to PICCs, such as outpatient feasibility, nurse-led insertion, and cost-effectiveness, are also achievable with tnc-CICCs, but with a significantly lower risk of catheter-related thrombosis. This suggests that tnc-CICCs could be the preferable venous access option in oncology populations at high risk of thrombosis. Therefore, further research should focus on a direct, prospective comparison between PICC/t PICC and tnc-CICC in cancer patients.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that tnc-CICCs are safe and effective when placed using a standardised, ultrasound-guided technique with real time tip localisation, even when performed by less experienced operators. The overall complication and venous thrombosis rates were low, with excellent procedural success.

These findings suggest that tnc-CICCs could be considered as an alternative to PICCs. Therefore, we suggest adding tnc-CICCs to device selection algorithms for patient populations at elevated risk of thrombotic events. Moreover, the reproducibility of safe outcomes with structured training supports the viability of expanding tnc-CICC placement to nurse-led teams, mirroring current best practices with PICC. This paradigm shift has the potential to improve vascular access outcomes even further, while reducing healthcare costs and procedural variability.

Abbreviations

Peripherally inserted central catheter

Tunnelled non-cuffed centrally inserted central catheters

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the help of A. Laenen from the Leuven Biostatistics and Statistical Bioinformatics Centre (LBioStat) for assistance in the statistical analysis.

Declaration of AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process

During the preparation of this work, the author(s) used Chat GPT to improve readability and language.

Authors’ contributions

All authors were responsible for conseptualisation and approved the final manuscript. TD was responsible for data collection and analysis. TD and LG were responsible for manuscript preparation.

Funding

No Funding was received for this study.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval was obtained on 02-06-2022 from the UZL Ethics Committee for research (S66620). The study was performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. Due to the retrospective nature of the study, no informed consent was attained.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

References

1. Baskin JL Pui C Reiss U Management of occlusion and thrombosis associated with long-term indwelling central venous catheters Lancet 2009 374 159 69 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60220-8 19595350 PMC2814365 Baskin JL, Pui C, Reiss U, et al. Management of occlusion and thrombosis associated with long-term indwelling central venous catheters. Lancet. 2009;374:159–69. 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60220-8 PMC2814365 19595350

2. Yeow M, Soh S, Yap R, et al. A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on choice of central venous access device for delivery of chemotherapy. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2022;10(5):1184-91 e8. 10.1016/j.jvsv.2022.03.007 . Published Online First: 20220330]. 35367407

3. Chopra V Anand S Krein SL Bloodstream infection, venous thrombosis, and peripherally inserted central catheters: reappraising the evidence Am J Med 2012 125 8 733 41 10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.04.010 22840660 Chopra V, Anand S, Krein SL, et al. Bloodstream infection, venous thrombosis, and peripherally inserted central catheters: reappraising the evidence. Am J Med. 2012;125(8):733–41. 10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.04.010 . 22840660

4. Tran H Arellano M Chamsuddin A Deep venous thromboses in patients with hematological malignancies after peripherally inserted central venous catheters Leuk Lymphoma 2010 51 8 1473 7 10.3109/10428194.2010.481065 20443681 Tran H, Arellano M, Chamsuddin A, et al. Deep venous thromboses in patients with hematological malignancies after peripherally inserted central venous catheters. Leuk Lymphoma. 2010;51(8):1473–7. 10.3109/10428194.2010.481065 . 20443681

5. Ellis ML Okano S McCann A Catheter-related thrombosis incidence and risk factors in adult cancer patients with central venous access devices Intern Med J 2020 50 12 1475 82 10.1111/imj.14780 32043739 Ellis ML, Okano S, McCann A, et al. Catheter-related thrombosis incidence and risk factors in adult cancer patients with central venous access devices. Intern Med J. 2020;50(12):1475–82. 10.1111/imj.14780 . 32043739

6. Johansson E Hammarskjold F Lundberg D Advantages and disadvantages of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) compared to other central venous lines: a systematic review of the literature Acta Oncol 2013 52 5 886 92 10.3109/0284186X.2013.773072 23472835 Johansson E, Hammarskjold F, Lundberg D, et al. Advantages and disadvantages of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) compared to other central venous lines: a systematic review of the literature. Acta Oncol. 2013;52(5):886–92. [published Online First: 20130311]. 10.3109/0284186X.2013.773072 23472835

7. Bernasconi F Zanaboni C Dato A Atypical use of PICC in infants and small children: a unicentric experience J Vasc Access 2017 18 6 535 39 10.5301/jva.5000773 28777412 Bernasconi F, Zanaboni C, Dato A, et al. Atypical use of PICC in infants and small children: a unicentric experience. J Vasc Access. 2017;18(6):535–39. 10.5301/jva.5000773 . [published Online First: 20170729]. 28777412

8. van Rens MR, van der Lee R, Spencer TR, et al. The NAVIGATE project: A GloVANet-WoCoVA position statement on the nomenclature for vascular access devices. J Vasc Access 2024:11297298241291248. 10.1177/11297298241291248 . Published Online First: 20241024. 39446461

9. Pittiruti M. The Off-Label Use of PICCs. Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheters. 2014:127–44.

10. Lawson BT Zealley IA Adult ‘PICC’ Device May be Used as a Tunnelled Central Venous Catheter in Children Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2018 41 4 645 52 10.1007/s00270-017-1860-5 29344711 PMC5838138 Lawson BT, Zealley IA. Adult ‘PICC’ Device May be Used as a Tunnelled Central Venous Catheter in Children. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2018;41(4):645–52. 10.1007/s00270-017-1860-5 . [published Online First: 20180117]. PMC5838138 29344711

11. Low XZ Tay KH Leong S Repurposing the power injectable peripherally inserted central catheter as a tunnelled, non-cuffed, centrally inserted central venous catheter in oncological patients for short- to mid-term vascular access: A pilot study J Vasc Access 2021 22 3 457 61 10.1177/1129729820943449 32715861 Low XZ, Tay KH, Leong S, et al. Repurposing the power injectable peripherally inserted central catheter as a tunnelled, non-cuffed, centrally inserted central venous catheter in oncological patients for short- to mid-term vascular access: A pilot study. J Vasc Access. 2021;22(3):457–61. doi: 10.1177/1129729820943449 [published Online First: 20200725]. 10.1177/1129729820943449 32715861

12. Dehbozorgi A Jandali B Turner R Safety of non-cuffed tunneled central venous catheters in adults with cystic fibrosis Respir Med Res 2023 85 101073 10.1016/j.resmer.2023.101073 38157768 Dehbozorgi A, Jandali B, Turner R, et al. Safety of non-cuffed tunneled central venous catheters in adults with cystic fibrosis. Respir Med Res. 2023;85:101073. 10.1016/j.resmer.2023.101073 . [published Online First: 20231130]. 38157768

13. Rashid R Sohrabi C Kerwan A The STROCSS 2024 guideline: strengthening the reporting of cohort, cross-sectional, and case-control studies in surgery Int J Surg 2024 110 6 3151 65 10.1097/JS9.0000000000001268 38445501 PMC11175759 Rashid R, Sohrabi C, Kerwan A, et al. The STROCSS 2024 guideline: strengthening the reporting of cohort, cross-sectional, and case-control studies in surgery. Int J Surg. 2024;110(6):3151–65. 10.1097/JS9.0000000000001268 . [published Online First: 20240601]. PMC11175759 38445501

14. Farge D Le Maignan C Doucet L Women, thrombosis, and cancer Thromb Res 2019 181 Suppl 1 S47 53 10.1016/S0049-3848(19)30367-6 31477228 Farge D, Le Maignan C, Doucet L, et al. Women, thrombosis, and cancer. Thromb Res. 2019;181(Suppl 1):S47–53. 10.1016/S0049-3848(19)30367-6 . 31477228

15. Lee AY Levine MN Butler G Incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of catheter-related thrombosis in adult patients with cancer J Clin Oncol 2006 24 9 1404 8 10.1200/JCO.2005.03.5600 16549834 Lee AY, Levine MN, Butler G, et al. Incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of catheter-related thrombosis in adult patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(9):1404–8. 10.1200/JCO.2005.03.5600 . 16549834

16. Harris PA Taylor R Minor BL The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners J Biomed Inf 2019 95 103208 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208 PMC7254481 31078660 Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, et al. The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inf. 2019;95:103208. 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208 . [published Online First: 20190509]. PMC7254481 31078660

17. Harris PA Taylor R Thielke R Research electronic data capture (REDCap)- -a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support J Biomed Inf 2009 42 2 377 81 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 PMC2700030 18929686 Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inf. 2009;42(2):377–81. [published Online First: 20080930]. 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 PMC2700030 18929686

18. Goossens GA De Waele Y Jerome M Diagnostic accuracy of the Catheter Injection and Aspiration (CINAS) classification for assessing the function of totally implantable venous access devices Support Care Cancer 2016 24 2 755 61 10.1007/s00520-015-2839-x 26209949 Goossens GA, De Waele Y, Jerome M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of the Catheter Injection and Aspiration (CINAS) classification for assessing the function of totally implantable venous access devices. Support Care Cancer. 2016;24(2):755–61. 10.1007/s00520-015-2839-x . [published Online First: 20150726]. 26209949

19. Teichgraber UK Nagel SN Kausche S Clinical benefit of power-injectable port systems: a prospective observational study Eur J Radiol 2012 81 3 528 33 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.01.038 21392913 Teichgraber UK, Nagel SN, Kausche S, et al. Clinical benefit of power-injectable port systems: a prospective observational study. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(3):528–33. 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.01.038 . [published Online First: 20110309]. 21392913

20. Nickel B, Gorski L, Kleidon T, et al. Infusion Therapy Standards of Practice, 9th Edition. J Infus Nurs. 2024;47(1S Suppl 1):S1–S285. 10.1097/NAN.0000000000000532 . 38211609

21. Balsorano P Virgili G Villa G Peripherally inserted central catheter-related thrombosis rate in modern vascular access era-when insertion technique matters: A systematic review and meta-analysis J Vasc Access 2020 21 1 45 54 10.1177/1129729819852203 31177939 Balsorano P, Virgili G, Villa G, et al. Peripherally inserted central catheter-related thrombosis rate in modern vascular access era-when insertion technique matters: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Vasc Access. 2020;21(1):45–54. 10.1177/1129729819852203 . [published Online First: 20190610]. 31177939

22. Alexandrou E Murgo M Calabria E Nurse-led central venous catheter insertion-procedural characteristics and outcomes of three intensive care based catheter placement services Int J Nurs Stud 2012 49 2 162 8 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.08.011 21944565 Alexandrou E, Murgo M, Calabria E, et al. Nurse-led central venous catheter insertion-procedural characteristics and outcomes of three intensive care based catheter placement services. Int J Nurs Stud. 2012;49(2):162–8. [published Online First: 20110923]. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.08.011 21944565

23. Scimo M Vallecorsa I Cini A Vascular access unit: Six-years experience report in France J Vasc Access 2023 24 6 1293 98 10.1177/11297298221080228 35216538 Scimo M, Vallecorsa I, Cini A, et al. Vascular access unit: Six-years experience report in France. J Vasc Access. 2023;24(6):1293–98. 10.1177/11297298221080228 . [published Online First: 20220225]. 35216538

24. Thomsen SL Boa R Vinter-Jensen L Safety and Efficacy of Midline vs Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters Among Adults Receiving IV Therapy: A Randomized Clinical Trial JAMA Netw Open 2024 7 2 e2355716 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.55716 38349655 PMC10865154 Thomsen SL, Boa R, Vinter-Jensen L, et al. Safety and Efficacy of Midline vs Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters Among Adults Receiving IV Therapy: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(2):e2355716. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.55716 . [published Online First: 20240205]. PMC10865154 38349655

25. Aljediea I Alshehri M Alenazi K Experience of Radiology Technologists Performing Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters (PICC) Arab J Interventional Radiol 2021 05 02 088 92 10.1055/s-0041-1739303 Aljediea I, Alshehri M, Alenazi K, et al. Experience of Radiology Technologists Performing Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters (PICC). Arab J Interventional Radiol. 2021;05(02):088–92. 10.1055/s-0041-1739303 .

26. Sapkota S Sannur R Naik R Analysis of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Line in Cancer Patients: A Single-Center Experience South Asian J Cancer 2020 9 4 253 56 10.1055/s-0040-1721175 34141688 PMC8205555 Sapkota S, Sannur R, Naik R. Analysis of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Line in Cancer Patients: A Single-Center Experience. South Asian J Cancer. 2020;9(4):253–56. 10.1055/s-0040-1721175 . [published Online First: 20210615]. PMC8205555 34141688

27. Bertoglio S Faccini B Lalli L Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) in cancer patients under chemotherapy: A prospective study on the incidence of complications and overall failures J Surg Oncol 2016 113 6 708 14 10.1002/jso.24220 27020965 Bertoglio S, Faccini B, Lalli L, et al. Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) in cancer patients under chemotherapy: A prospective study on the incidence of complications and overall failures. J Surg Oncol. 2016;113(6):708–14. 10.1002/jso.24220 . [published Online First: 20160329]. 27020965

28. Sharp R Carr P Childs J Catheter to vein ratio and risk of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-associated thrombosis according to diagnostic group: a retrospective cohort study BMJ Open 2021 11 7 e045895 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045895 34226216 PMC8258560 Sharp R, Carr P, Childs J, et al. Catheter to vein ratio and risk of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-associated thrombosis according to diagnostic group: a retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open. 2021;11(7):e045895. 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045895 . [published Online First: 20210705]. PMC8258560 34226216

29. Ma S Shen C Li Q Clinical factors of PICC-RVT in cancer patients: a meta-analysis Support Care Cancer 2023 31 7 393 10.1007/s00520-023-07855-8 37314592 Ma S, Shen C, Li Q, et al. Clinical factors of PICC-RVT in cancer patients: a meta-analysis. Support Care Cancer. 2023;31(7):393. 10.1007/s00520-023-07855-8 . [published Online First: 20230614]. 37314592

30. Milczarek S, Kulig P, Piotrowska O, et al. Catheter-related thrombosis in stem cell recipients: comparison of different types of catheter. Haematologica. 2024;109(4):1285–8. 10.3324/haematol.2023.283924 . PMC10985456 37916397

31. Tesselaar ME Ouwerkerk J Nooy MA Risk factors for catheter-related thrombosis in cancer patients Eur J Cancer 2004 40 15 2253 9 10.1016/j.ejca.2004.06.023 15454250 Tesselaar ME, Ouwerkerk J, Nooy MA, et al. Risk factors for catheter-related thrombosis in cancer patients. Eur J Cancer. 2004;40(15):2253–9. 10.1016/j.ejca.2004.06.023 . 15454250

32. Liu R Xu H Pu L Clinical characteristics of peripherally inserted central catheter-related complications in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy: a prospective and observational study BMC Cancer 2023 23 1 894 10.1186/s12885-023-11413-0 37736715 PMC10515037 Liu R, Xu H, Pu L, et al. Clinical characteristics of peripherally inserted central catheter-related complications in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy: a prospective and observational study. BMC Cancer. 2023;23(1):894. 10.1186/s12885-023-11413-0 . [published Online First: 20230922]. PMC10515037 37736715

33. Pinelli F Balsorano P Mura B Reconsidering the GAVeCeLT Consensus on catheter-related thrombosis, 13 years later J Vasc Access 2021 22 4 501 08 10.1177/1129729820947594 32772785 Pinelli F, Balsorano P, Mura B, et al. Reconsidering the GAVeCeLT Consensus on catheter-related thrombosis, 13 years later. J Vasc Access. 2021;22(4):501–08. 10.1177/1129729820947594 . [published Online First: 20200808]. 32772785

34. Trezza C Califano C Iovino V Incidence of fibroblastic sleeve and of catheter-related venous thrombosis in peripherally inserted central catheters: A prospective study on oncological and hematological patients J Vasc Access 2021 22 3 444 49 10.1177/1129729820949411 32781878 Trezza C, Califano C, Iovino V, et al. Incidence of fibroblastic sleeve and of catheter-related venous thrombosis in peripherally inserted central catheters: A prospective study on oncological and hematological patients. J Vasc Access. 2021;22(3):444–49. 10.1177/1129729820949411 . [published Online First: 20200812]. 32781878

35. Hong J Mao X Complications of tunneled and non-tunneled peripherally inserted central catheter placement in chemotherapy-treated cancer patients: a meta-analysis Front Surg 2024 11 1469847 10.3389/fsurg.2024.1469847 39474226 PMC11518809 Hong J, Mao X. Complications of tunneled and non-tunneled peripherally inserted central catheter placement in chemotherapy-treated cancer patients: a meta-analysis. Front Surg. 2024;11:1469847. 10.3389/fsurg.2024.1469847 . [published Online First: 20241015]. PMC11518809 39474226

36. Park S Moon S Pai H Appropriate duration of peripherally inserted central catheter maintenance to prevent central line-associated bloodstream infection PLoS ONE 2020 15 6 e0234966 10.1371/journal.pone.0234966 32569313 PMC7307762 Park S, Moon S, Pai H, et al. Appropriate duration of peripherally inserted central catheter maintenance to prevent central line-associated bloodstream infection. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(6):e0234966. 10.1371/journal.pone.0234966 . [published Online First: 20200622]. PMC7307762 32569313

37. Caris MG de Jonge NA Punt HJ Indwelling time of peripherally inserted central catheters and incidence of bloodstream infections in haematology patients: a cohort study Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2022 11 1 37 10.1186/s13756-022-01069-z 35177128 PMC8851849 Caris MG, de Jonge NA, Punt HJ, et al. Indwelling time of peripherally inserted central catheters and incidence of bloodstream infections in haematology patients: a cohort study. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2022;11(1):37. 10.1186/s13756-022-01069-z . [published Online First: 20220217]. PMC8851849 35177128