Risk for device failure was not significantly different with hydrophobic or chlorhexidine PICCs versus standard polyurethane PICCs<\/p>\n<\/h3>\n
By Elana Gotkine HealthDay Reporter<\/b>
\n<\/b><\/p>\n
THURSDAY, Jan. 9, 2025 (HealthDay News) — For patients referred for peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), the risk for device failure is not lower with hydrophobic or chlorhexidine PICCs versus standard polyurethane ones, according to a study published in the Jan. 9 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine<\/em>.<\/p>\n Amanda J. Ullman, Ph.D., from the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, and colleagues conducted a randomized, controlled, superiority trial in three tertiary hospitals involving adults and children who were referred for PICC placement. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a hydrophobic or chlorhexidine PICC or a standard polyurethane PICC (365, 365, and 368, respectively) and were followed for eight weeks.<\/p>\n The researchers found that device failure occurred in 5.9, 9.9, and 6.1 percent of participants in the hydrophobic, chlorhexidine, and standard polyurethane groups, respectively (risk difference: hydrophobic versus standard polyurethane, \u22120.2 percentage points [95 percent confidence interval, \u22123.7 to 3.2; P = 0.89]; chlorhexidine versus standard polyurethane, 3.8 percentage points [95 percent confidence interval, \u22120.1 to 7.8; P = 0.06]). The odds ratio for device failure was 0.96 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.51 to 1.78) and 1.71 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.98 to 2.99) in the hydrophobic versus the standard-polyurethane group and in the chlorhexidine versus the standard-polyurethane group, respectively. Complications from any cause during the period of PICC placement occurred in 21.5, 38.6, and 21.7 percent in the hydrophobic, chlorhexidine, and standard-polyurethane groups, respectively.<\/p>\n “The current findings reflect the complexity in preventing multifactorial PICC dysfunction, with no apparent difference in the incidence of device failure or of catheter-acquired bloodstream infection according to PICC type,” the authors write.<\/p>\n Abstract\/Full Text (subscription or payment may be required)<\/a><\/p>\n