# Clinical factors associated with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) related bloodstream infections: a single centre retrospective cohort

Koko Barrigah-Benissan, Jérôme Ory, Claire Simon, Paul Loubet, Aurelie Martin, Jean-Paul Beregi, Jean-Philippe Lavigne, Albert Sotto, Romaric Larcher

► To cite this version:

Koko Barrigah-Benissan, Jérôme Ory, Claire Simon, Paul Loubet, Aurelie Martin, et al. Clinical factors associated with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) related bloodstream infections: a single centre retrospective cohort. Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control, 2023, 12 (1), pp.5. 10.1186/s13756-023-01209-z. http://hal-03969445

HAL Id: hal-03969445

https://hal.science/hal-03969445

Submitted on 5 Jun 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
RESEARCH

Open Access

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

# Clinical factors associated with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) related bloodstream infections: a single centre retrospective cohort

Koko Barrigah-Benissan<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />, Jerome Ory<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />, Claire Simon<fnref n="3" />, Paul Loubet<fnref n="2" />,<fnref n="4" />, Aurelie Martin<fnref n="4" />, Jean-Paul Beregi<fnref n="5" />, Jean-Philippe Lavigne<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />, Albert Sotto<fnref n="2" />,<fnref n="4" /> and Romaric Larcher<fnref n="4" />,<fnref n="6" />*

**Abstract**

**Background** Despite their spread in daily practice, few data is available on clinical factors associated with peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-related bloodstream infections (PR-BSI). We aimed to assess the PR-BSI incidence, microbiology, and factors associated with PR-BSI with a focus on clinical symptoms.

**Methods** We conducted a retrospective cohort study in a French university hospital. We screened all PICC insertions performed from April 1st, 2018, to April 1st, 2019, and included PICC insertions in adult patients. We assessed the PR-BSI incidence, the factors associated with PR-BSI using a Cox model, and negative and positive predictive values (NPVs and PPVs) of each clinical sign for PR-BSI.

**Results** Of the 901 PICCs inserted in 783 patients (38,320 catheters days), 214 PICCs (24%) presented with a complication. The most prevalent complication was PR-BSI (1.9 per 1000 catheter days; 8.1% of inserted PICCs). Enterobacteriales (N=27, 37%) and coagulase negative Staphylococci (N=24, 33%), were the main microorganisms responsible for PR-BSI. Factors independently associated with occurrence of PR-BSI were fever (hazard ratio 13.21, 95% confidence interval 6.00–29.11, *p* < 0.001) and chills (HR 3.66, 95%CI 1.92–6.99, *p* < 0.001). All clinical signs and a duration of PICC maintenance ≥ 28 days, had a low PPVs (≤ 67.1%) but high NPVs (≥ 92.5%) for PR-BSI.

**Conclusions** Monitoring of clinical signs, especially fever and chills, with caution and limitation of device maintenance duration, could improve PICC management.

**Keywords** PICC, CR-BSI, Fever, Chills, PICC maintenance duration

<footnote>*Correspondence:</footnote>

<footnote>Romaric Larcher
romaric.larcher@chu-nimes.fr</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹ Department of Microbiology and Infection Control, CHU Nimes, Nimes, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Bacterial Virulence and Chronic Infections, INSERM U1047, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Department of Pharmacy, CHU Nimes, Nimes, France</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Department of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, CHU de Nimes, 1 Place Robert Debré, 30000 Nimes, France</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Department of Medical Imaging, CHU Nimes, Nimes, France</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ PhyMedExp, INSERM, CNRS, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France</footnote>
**Background**

Since their introduction in late 1970s [1], peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC, also known as PICC-line) widely spread in daily practice. They are indicated for intermediate-term venous access (7 days to 6 months) for some concrete indications as irritant or vesicant infusions (total parenteral nutrition or chemotherapy), difficult venous access and prolonged antimicrobial therapies [2]. PICC insertion occurs through a peripheral upper arm vein, avoiding iatrogenic complications and ensuring a safe and easy removal compared to other central venous catheters (CVCs) which they partially replaced [3]. Despite some advantages, mechanical complications as occlusion, accidental withdrawal [4], deep venous thrombosis [5], and catheter-related bloodstream infections (CR-BSIs) [6, 7] were reported during PICC use. Rates of PICC-related bloodstream infections (PR-BSIs) compared to other CVCs infections has been a controversial and disputed subject. Now PR-BSI rates are recognized similar to those of conventional CVCs [8, 9]. Nonetheless, in a recent national public health survey in France, one quarter of the 30 million of catheters implanted every year presented with a CR-BSI. Among these infections, 16.8% were related to a PICC, making PR-BSI the most important and preventable PICC-related complication [10–12].

Whilst abundant literature is available on PICC related complications, PR-BSI risk factors are still poorly assessed [13]. Published data remains scarce [9, 13–18], particularly for medical ward inpatients and outpatients, since most of the data focuses on intensive care unit (ICU) [19].

A study aiming to assess PICC-related complication incidence, with a highlight on PR-BSI, to describe the microorganisms involved and to assess risk factors associated with PR-BSI with a focus on clinical signs, is lacking.

**Methods**

**Study aim, design and settings**

This study aims to assess PICC-related complication incidence, particularly the PR-BSI incidence and to describe the microorganisms involved and risk factors associated with PR-BSI with a focus on clinical signs in patients from a tertiary hospital.

We conducted a retrospective, single centre, observational cohort study in Nimes University Hospital, from April 1st, 2018, to April 1st, 2019. In the medical imaging department of this 2094-beds University Hospital, single or double lumen PICC (Bard Access Systems, Salt Lake City, UT, USA) ultrasonography guided insertions are performed on inpatients and outpatients 5 days a week.

Each PICC insertion request is forwarded to, registered, and validated or not by the Pharmacy Department. PICC insertion is performed in aseptic conditions according to the French Society of Infection Control (SF2H) guidelines [20]. After insertion, PICC position is verified with a chest X-ray and adjusted if required. Normal saline is used for preventing lumen occlusion and maintaining PICC patency, as recommended by national and international guidelines [2, 20].

**Patients**

We screened all consecutive patients with at least one PICC placement between April 1st, 2018, and April 1st, 2019, using the pharmacy registry of PICC insertion requests. All adult patients were included in the study. When a patient had more than one PICC placement, all PICC placements were considered. Patients under 18-year-old and those lost to follow-up between PICC insertion and PICC removal were excluded.

**Data collection**

Patient's demographic, clinical and biological data were collected from the hospital electronic medical record. Age, sex, weight, height, body mass index (BMI), medical history, reason for PICC placement, insertion date, removal date, type of PICC, site of insertion, reason for PICC removal, ongoing treatment (especially corticostoreids or other immunosuppressive treatments) and vital status at PICC removal were collected. When a bloodstream sample was diagnosed positive by the microbiology laboratory, more information was collected on the laboratory software (number of samples collected, number of positive samples, central and peripheral blood culture results, insertion site culture and catheter culture results, lag time between central and peripheral positive blood cultures, microorganism identification and antimicrobial resistance). Patients' Charlson comorbidity index was calculated [21]. Microorganisms resistance diagnosis were based on the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) guidelines [22]. An adjudication committee, made up of an infection control specialist (J.O.), an infectious disease physician (A.S) and an intensivist (R.L.), analysed the medical records to ensure the diagnosis met definition criteria of PICC-related infections (PRI) [23]. For each case of BSI, alternative sources of infection were carefully checked by the adjudication committee by reviewing the patient chart and all microbiological culture results. In case of discrepancy, diagnosis was discussed between the committee members until a consensus was reached.
## Definitions

We defined PRI according to the French Intensive Care Society (SRLF) guidelines [23], which are in line with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (ECDC) guidelines [24–26].

We defined PICC colonization as a quantitative catheter culture ≥ 10³ CFU/mL (according to Brun-Buisson) without bacteraemia or clinical signs [23].

We defined non-bacteraemia PRI (NB-PRI), in the absence of bacteraemia, as a combination of: (i) a quantitative catheter culture ≥ 10³ CFU/mL and (ii) (a) signs of local infection (purulent discharge from the PICC insertion site or tunnel infection); and/or (b) systemic signs, with complete or partial resolution of systemic signs of infection within 48 h after PICC removal [23].

We defined PR-BSI as an association of: (i) the occurrence of either bacteraemia or fungaemia during the 48-h period surrounding catheter removal (or a suspected diagnosis of PRI when the PICC is not removed immediately); (ii) and either a positive culture with the same microorganism on one of the following samples: insertion site culture, or catheter culture ≥ 10³ CFU/mL or positive central and peripheral blood cultures with the same microorganism, with a central/peripheral positive blood culture lag time > 2 h, with central blood cultures being positive earlier than the peripheral ones [23].

## Statistical analysis

PICC insertion was the unit for statistical analyses. Data are described as median and interquartile range (IQR) or number and percentage as appropriate. We assessed factors associated with PR-BSI using a Cox model. Factors with a *p*-value ≤ 0.1 in the univariate analysis were included in the multivariable analysis. Results of the Cox model were reported as hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI). We plotted receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for clinical signs associated with PR-BSI and for PICC maintenance duration. We calculated the negative and positive predictive values (NPVs, PPVs) for each clinical sign, and identified the optimal cut-off value of catheter duration for PR-BSI occurrence by maximizing the Youden index. All tests were two-sided and *p*-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. We performed all analyses using *R* software, version 4.2.0 (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

## Results

From April 1st, 2018 to April 1st, 2019; amongst 1091 PICCs inserted in 952 patients, 901 PICCs inserted in 783 patients met inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis (Fig. 1). The median follow-up was 21 days (IQR, 9–43). More than a half of PICCs were removed at the end of intravenous therapy (N=529; 59%), 38% (N=346) because of a complication and 3% (N=26) after port implantation. The median time for PR-BSI occurrence was 30 (IQR, 16–76).

Characteristics of the study population are presented in Table 1. The median age for patients with a PICC insertion was 70.9 years (IQR, 59.4–79.8). The median BMI was 24.5 kg/m² (IQR, 21.2–28.9). More than a half of patients had a peripheral vascular disease, a quarter had a chronic heart failure and 22% a metastatic cancer. The median Charlson comorbidity index was 6 (IQR, 3–9).

Antimicrobial therapy (N=408; 45%); chemotherapy (N=240; 27%) and difficult venous access (N=154; 17%) were the main reasons for PICC insertion. Inserted PICCs had mostly one lumen (N=712; 79%) and were inserted in the left basilic or brachial veins (N=470; 52%, or N=209; 24%). The median PICC maintenance duration was 21 days (IQR, 9–43) accounting for 38,320 catheter days, and PICCs were essentially removed at the end of IV therapy (N=529; 59%). However, an accidental withdrawal before the end of therapy occurred in 69 cases (7%), and PICCs were also removed immediately in case of CR-BSI suspicion (N=124; 14%) or death (N=117; 13%). Characteristics of PICCs are summarized in Table 1.

Around one quarter of PICCs (N=214, 24%) presented with a complication (Table 2). The first complication encountered was PR-BSI (N=73, 8.1%, 1.9 per 1000 catheter days). Accidental withdrawal (N=61, 6.8%, 1.6 per 1000 catheter days), vein thrombosis (N=14, 1.6% and 0.4 per 1000 catheter days), catheter occlusion (N=12, 1.3%, 0.3 per 1000 catheter days), local signs of inflammation (N=4, 0.4%, 0.1 per 1000 catheter days) and NB-PRI (N=3, 0.4%, <0.1 per 1000 catheter days) were less frequent.

Among the microorganisms involved in PR-BSI, Enterobacterales were the main species (N=27, 37%), followed by Coagulase Negative Staphylococci (CoNS) (N=24; 33%), *Staphylococcus aureus* (N=7; 10%), *Candida* species (N=7; 10%) and non-fermenting Gram-Negative Bacilli (N=5; 7%). Polymicrobial CR-BSI with two species accounted for 19 cases (26%) and 5 cases (7%) were documented with more than 2 species. Moreover, 47 PICCs presented with a colonization (6.8%, 1.2 per 1000 catheter days), predominantly due to CoNS (N=33, 70%) and Enterobacterales (N=6, 13%).
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Flow chart of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) placement</figcaption></figure>

Characteristics of the species involved in infectious complications are listed in Table 3.

Fever and chills were the most common clinical signs in 84% and 64% of patients with PR-BSI, respectively. These two clinical signs showed the best prediction capacity for PR-BSI: area under the ROC curve (AUC) 0.8828, 95%CI 0.8391–0.9265 for fever and 0.808, 95%CI 0.7524–0.8636 for chills (Fig. 2). Importantly, all clinical signs, namely pain or rash at PICC insertion site, fever, chills, or dyspnoea had high specificity but low sensitivity for PR-BSI detection (Table 4). Accordingly, the NPVs of clinical signs were satisfactory, especially for fever (98.5%) and chills (96.9%), whereas the PPV were low. The higher PPV were 66.7% for the occurrence of a rash at PICC insertion site and 67.1% for the occurrence of chills (Table 4).

As illustrated in the Fig. 3, the risk of PR-BSI increased with the duration of PICC maintenance. The risk increased mainly during the first 6 months with a probability of PR-BSI at 32.2% (95%CI 22.5–40.7) at day-180. The AUC of PICC maintenance duration for PR-BSI development was 0.6349, 95%CI 0.5715–0.6984 and the optimal cut-off value of catheter day associated with PR-BSI development was 28 days. Similar to clinical signs, the PPV for PR-BSI development of a PICC maintenance

duration ≥ 28 days was very low at 11.2% whereas the NPV was at 93.9%.

In the univariate analysis the variables associated with occurrence of PR-BSI were: an history of immunosuppressive treatments (either corticosteroids or immunosuppressors, or both; HR 1.79, 95%CI 1.38–2.32, *p* < 0.001), an history of malignancy (solid tumour or haematological malignancy; HR 1.68, 95%CI 1.2–2.36, *p* = 0.003), dementia (HR 8.25, 95%CI 1.12–61, *p* = 0.04), insertion of a double-lumen PICC (HR 2.24, 95%CI 1.41–3.58, *p* < 0.001) and occurrence of clinical signs: pain at insertion site (HR 6.65, 95%CI 3.01–14.7, *p* < 0.001), rash at insertion site (HR 10.2, 95%CI 4.36–23.8, *p* < 0.001), fever (HR 30.9, 95%CI 16.5–57.7, *p* < 0.001), chills (HR 25.6, 95%CI 15.2–43, *p* < 0.001).

In the multivariable analysis only fever (HR 13.21, 95%CI 6.00–29.11, *p* < 0.001) and chills (HR 3.66, 95%CI 1.92–6.99, *p* < 0.001) were independently associated with the occurrence of PR-BSI (Table 4).

## Discussion

This retrospective cohort study reports the results of 901 PICC insertions in 783 patients accounting for 38,320 catheters days. 214 PICCs (24%) presented with
<table><caption>**Table 1** Characteristics of the study population and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Total (N=901) N (%) or median (IQR)</th><th>No PR-BSI (N=828) N (%) or median (IQR)</th><th>PR-BSI (N=73) N (%) or median (IQR)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Patients, N</td><td>783</td><td>713</td><td>70</td></tr><tr><td>Sex ratio M/F</td><td>500/401</td><td>461/367</td><td>37/33</td></tr><tr><td>Age (year)</td><td>70.9 (IQR, 59.4-79.8)</td><td>71.0 (IQR, 59.8-80.5)</td><td>69.8 (IQR, 58.8-74.1)</td></tr><tr><td>Body Mass Index (kg/m²)</td><td>24.5 (IQR, 21.2-28.9)</td><td>23.8 (IQR, 20.7-28.1)</td><td>24.4 (IQR, 21.1-28.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Charlson comorbidity index</td><td>6 [3-9]</td><td>6 [3-8]</td><td>7 [4-10]</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><em>Main comorbidities</em></td></tr><tr><td>Corticosteroids</td><td>141 (18%)</td><td>112 (16%)</td><td>29 (41%)</td></tr><tr><td>Immunosuppressors</td><td>101 (13%)</td><td>78 (11%)</td><td>23 (33%)</td></tr><tr><td>Solid tumour</td><td>142 (18%)</td><td>129 (18%)</td><td>13 (19%)</td></tr><tr><td>Metastatic solid tumour</td><td>178 (23%)</td><td>151 (21%)</td><td>27 (38%)</td></tr><tr><td>Haematological malignancy</td><td>69 (9%)</td><td>51 (7%)</td><td>18 (26%)</td></tr><tr><td>Leukaemia</td><td>46 (6%)</td><td>36 (5%)</td><td>10 (14%)</td></tr><tr><td>Lymphoma</td><td>23 (3%)</td><td>15 (2%)</td><td>8 (11%)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><em>PICC lumen</em></td></tr><tr><td>1 lumen</td><td>712 (79%)</td><td>669 (81%)</td><td>43 (59%)</td></tr><tr><td>2 lumens</td><td>189 (21%)</td><td>159 (19%)</td><td>30 (41%)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><em>Reason for PICC insertion</em></td></tr><tr><td>Antimicrobial therapy</td><td>408 (45%)</td><td>397 (48%)</td><td>11 (15%)</td></tr><tr><td>Chemotherapy</td><td>240 (27%)</td><td>201 (24%)</td><td>39 (53%)</td></tr><tr><td>Difficult venous access</td><td>154 (17%)</td><td>143 (17%)</td><td>11 (15%)</td></tr><tr><td>Total parenteral nutrition</td><td>52 (6%)</td><td>44 (5%)</td><td>8 (11%)</td></tr><tr><td>Iterative venous access</td><td>47 (5%)</td><td>43 (5%)</td><td>4 (5%)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><em>Insertion site</em></td></tr><tr><td>Left basilic vein</td><td>470 (52%)</td><td>436 (53%)</td><td>34 (47%)</td></tr><tr><td>Right basilic vein</td><td>135 (15%)</td><td>124 (15%)</td><td>11 (15%)</td></tr><tr><td>Left brachial vein</td><td>209 (24%)</td><td>189 (22%)</td><td>21 (29%)</td></tr><tr><td>Right brachial vein</td><td>72 (8%)</td><td>67 (8%)</td><td>5 (7%)</td></tr><tr><td>Left cephalic vein</td><td>12 (1%)</td><td>10 (1%)</td><td>2 (3%)</td></tr><tr><td>Right cephalic</td><td>1 (&lt;1%)</td><td>1 (&lt;1%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td></tr><tr><td>Femoral</td><td>1 (&lt;1%)</td><td>1 (&lt;1%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td></tr><tr><td>PICC maintenance (days)</td><td>21 (IQR, 9-43]</td><td>20 (IQR, 9-41]</td><td>30 (IQR, 16-76)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><em>Reason for PICC removal</em></td></tr><tr><td>End of IV therapy</td><td>529 (59%)</td><td>529 (64%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td></tr><tr><td>Accidental withdrawal</td><td>61 (7%)</td><td>60 (7%)</td><td>1 (1%)</td></tr><tr><td>PR-BSI suspicion</td><td>124 (14%)</td><td>62 (7%)</td><td>62 (85%)</td></tr><tr><td>Positive blood culture</td><td>5 (1%)</td><td>2 (&lt;1%)</td><td>3 (4%)</td></tr><tr><td>Vein thrombosis</td><td>18 (2%)</td><td>17 (2%)</td><td>1 (&lt;1%)</td></tr><tr><td>PICC occlusion</td><td>12 (1%)</td><td>11 (1%)</td><td>1 (&lt;1%)</td></tr><tr><td>Local inflammation</td><td>9 (1%)</td><td>8 (1%)</td><td>1 (&lt;1%)</td></tr><tr><td>Port implantation</td><td>26 (3%)</td><td>25 (3%)</td><td>1 (&lt;1%)</td></tr><tr><td>Death</td><td>117 (13%)</td><td>114 (14%)</td><td>3 (4%)</td></tr></tbody></table>

BSI Bloodstream infection, COPD Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, IQR Interquartile range, PR-BSI PICC related bloodstream infection, IV Intravenous

a complication, mainly a PR-BSI (N=73, 8.1%) with a 1.9 per 1000 catheter days incidence rate. Enterobacteriales (N=27, 37%) and CoNS (N=24, 33%) were the main microorganisms involved in PR-BSI. Moreover, we

highlighted the importance of clinical signs for PR-BSI monitoring, reporting fever and chills as factors independently associated with PR-BSI occurrence.

Over the last decade, PICC use increased in hospitals [27], particularly in university hospitals [10]. PR-BSIs
<table><caption>**Table 2** Type, rate and incidence of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) complications</caption><thead><tr><th>Complications</th><th>Number of PICC</th><th>Rates (%)</th><th>Incidence (per 1000 catheter days)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>PR-BSI</td><td>73</td><td>8.1</td><td>1.9</td></tr><tr><td>Accidental withdrawal</td><td>61</td><td>6.8</td><td>1.6</td></tr><tr><td>PICC colonization</td><td>47</td><td>5.2</td><td>1.2</td></tr><tr><td>Vein thrombosis</td><td>14</td><td>1.6</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Catheter occlusion</td><td>12</td><td>1.3</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>Local inflammation</td><td>4</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>NB-PRI</td><td>3</td><td>0.3</td><td>&lt;0.1</td></tr></tbody></table>

PR-BSI PICC related bloodstream infection, NB-PRI Non bacteraemia PICC related infection

also increased at the same time [10, 28, 29]. One important finding of this study was the 1.9 per 1000 catheter days incidence rate of PR-BSI, which was in line with the median 2.1 per 1000 catheter days incidence rate reported in meta-analyses of international studies [9, 30, 31]. Previous studies found various incidence rates ranging from 0.6 to 3.3 per 1000 catheter days [4, 16–18, 32]. Importantly, differences in PR-BSI incidence may be related to the time period of the studies and differences in catheter-related infection definitions across these studies [16]. Moreover, several definitions used in numerous

studies were reported unsuitable for research [33]. Nonetheless, we must acknowledge the PR-BSI incidence rate found in this study was above the 1 per 1000 catheter days threshold target for CR-BSI prevention intervention suggested by infection control experts [12]. In this global context, CVCs and particularly PICC were pointed as priorities for infection prevention measures [28]. Multimodal process for better CR-BSI prevention and control including practice change based on knowledge, education, and behavioural interventions in our hospital are encouraged [12]. Recent guidelines [34] suggested, practical healthcare workers team education and training, promoted by a multidisciplinary team with checklists, continuous improvement programs and bundles implementation [35].

Another significant finding of this work was the importance of clinical monitoring of PR-BSI. Indeed, this study identified a strong correlation between clinical signs such as fever and chills, and PR-BSI. Most importantly, clinical signs showed high specificity and NPV but unsatisfactory sensibility and PPV. The absence of clinical signs is therefore significantly indicative of the absence of PR-BSI as suggested by others in ICU settings [36]. Amongst clinical signs, fever and chills have the best NPVs. Fever was previously reported as indicative of CR-BSI along with other infection signs [37, 38]. In line with previous studies [39–41], we reported that prolonged duration of

<table><caption>**Table 3** Species involved in infectious complications of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)</caption><thead><tr><th>Species</th><th>PR-BSI (N, %)</th><th>PICC colonization (N, %)</th><th>Total (N, %)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><em>Gram positive cocci</em></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Coagulase Negative Staphylococci</td><td>24 (33%)</td><td>33 (70%)</td><td>57 (48%)</td></tr><tr><td>Linezolid resistant</td><td>2 (3%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>2 (2%)</td></tr><tr><td><em>Staphylococcus aureus</em></td><td>7 (10%)</td><td>1 (2%)</td><td>8 (7%)</td></tr><tr><td>MRSA</td><td>5 (7%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>5 (4%)</td></tr><tr><td><em>Enterococcus spp</em></td><td>2 (3%)</td><td>1 (2%)</td><td>3 (2.5%)</td></tr><tr><td><em>Streptococcus spp</em></td><td>1 (1%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>1 (1%)</td></tr><tr><td><em>Gram negative bacilli</em></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Enterobacterales</td><td>27 (37%)</td><td>6 (13%)</td><td>33 (28%)</td></tr><tr><td>3GCR</td><td>28 (38%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>28 (23%)</td></tr><tr><td>ESBL</td><td>10 (14%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>10 (8%)</td></tr><tr><td>AMPC</td><td>16 (23%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>16 (13%)</td></tr><tr><td>CRE</td><td>7 (10%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>7 (6%)</td></tr><tr><td>Non-fermenters</td><td>5 (7%)</td><td>3 (6%)</td><td>8 (7%)</td></tr><tr><td>Pip-Taz resistant <em>P. aeruginosa</em></td><td>2 (3%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>2 (2%)</td></tr><tr><td>Ceftazidime resistant <em>P. aeruginosa</em></td><td>1 (1%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>1 (1%)</td></tr><tr><td>CR <em>P. aeruginosa</em></td><td>1 (1%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>1 (1%)</td></tr><tr><td><em>Candida spp.</em></td><td>7 (10%)</td><td>3 (6%)</td><td>11 (9%)</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>73</td><td>47</td><td>120</td></tr></tbody></table>

CR Carbapenem resistant, CRE Carbapenem resistant Enterobacterales, ESBL Extended spectrum beta-lactamase, MRSA Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Pip-Taz Piperacillin-tazobactam, PR-BSI PICC related bloodstream infection, 3GCR 3rd generation cephalosporin resistance
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves for peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-associated bloodstream infection on the basis of the number of catheter days (red line) and clinical signs such as pain (blue dashed line), rash at the PICC insertion site (green pointed line), fever (orange dashed line), chills (purple dashed line), dyspnoea (black dashed line). Area under the ROC curves (AUCs) are given with the 95% confidence interval (95% CI)</figcaption></figure>

catheterization increased the risk for PR-BSI (see supplementary materials). However, our work underlined the poor ability of PICC maintenance duration to predict PR-BSI. Indeed, the threshold value of 28 catheter days

was associated with very low PPV but satisfactory NPV for PR-BSI, as previously reported [42]. These results suggest a close clinical signs monitoring could rapidly help diagnose and treat PR-BSI particularly in patient with a prolonged PICC dwelling time. These results also supports the recent recommendation of catheter duration limitation to the shortest requested to limit PR-BSI [34]. Available data also suggests that clinicians should limit the number of catheter lumen [9, 14, 43] and concurrent catheter [34].

Immunocompromised patients, particularly those treated with immunosuppressive treatments and/or with metastatic cancer have been identified at risk for PR-BSI. Immunosuppression, particularly neutropenia, was previously reported as risk factor for PR-BSI [40, 44–47], prompting clinicians to monitor PICC in immunocompromised patients with caution. Surprisingly, those patients did not seem at higher risk for PR-BSI in our study. During the study, a high nurse-to-patient ratio in haematology and oncology wards, local guidelines, and specific courses on PICC use for nurses were available in our institution. This may have impacted the quality of PICC care which has been widely reported to decrease PR-BSI incidence rate [34].

Previous studies on PR-BSI microbiology reported CoNS as the predominant microorganisms [11, 13, 39, 48]. Nonetheless, recent evidences [48–51] suggested a change in this trend with the rising of Gram negative bacilli as main microorganisms associated with PR-BSI. With a majority of PR-BSI related to Enterobacterales (37%), the results of our study tend to support the later.

<table><caption>**Table 4** Factors independently associated with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) related bloodstream infection (PR-BSI), and predictive values of clinical signs for PR-BSI</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Variables</th><th colspan="3">Multivariate analysis</th><th colspan="4">Diagnostic ability of clinical signs</th></tr><tr><th>Hazard ratio</th><th>95% CI</th><th>p-value</th><th>Sensitivity</th><th>Specificity</th><th>PPV</th><th>NPV</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><em>Patient conditions</em></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Immunosuppr. therapy<sup>1</sup></td><td>1.07</td><td>0.80–1.43</td><td>0.63</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Malignancy<sup>2</sup></td><td>1.08</td><td>0.67–1.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Dementia</td><td>1.62</td><td>0.18–14.58</td><td>0.67</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td><em>Clinical signs</em></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Local signs</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Pain</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.17–1.81</td><td>0.33</td><td>9.6%</td><td>98.7%</td><td>38.8%</td><td>92.5%</td></tr><tr><td>Rash</td><td>2.82</td><td>0.82–9.69</td><td>0.10</td><td>8.2%</td><td>99.6%</td><td>66.7%</td><td>92.5%</td></tr><tr><td><em>Systemic signs</em></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Fever</td><td>13.21</td><td>6.00–29.11</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>83.6%</td><td>93.0%</td><td>51.3%</td><td>98.5%</td></tr><tr><td>Chills</td><td>3.66</td><td>1.92–6.99</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>64.4%</td><td>97.2%</td><td>67.1%</td><td>96.9%</td></tr><tr><td>Dyspnoea</td><td>1.24</td><td>0.53–2.94</td><td>0.62</td><td>12.0%</td><td>99.4%</td><td>64.3%</td><td>93.0%</td></tr><tr><td>PICC duration ≥ 28 days</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>53.4%</td><td>62.8%</td><td>11.2%</td><td>93.9%</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="1">¹ at least one of the following: corticosteroids, azathioprine, mycophenolate mophetil, tacrolimus, ciclosporin. ² solid tumour or haematological malignancy. PPV Positive predictive Value, NPV Negative Predictive Value, 95% CI 95% confidence interval</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3** Incidence of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) related bloodstream infection during PICC maintenance (in days) with 95% confidence interval</figcaption></figure>

Yet, CoNS are still significantly associated with PR-BSI (33%) and responsible for most of PICC colonisations. The large proportion of immunocompromised patients in our cohort (almost a half of patients had a haematological malignancy or a cancer, and more than two thirds of patients with a PR-BSI), may explain the high prevalence of Enterobacterales associated PR-BSIs since these patients are most at risk to be infected with their own Enterobacterales [52]. Another possible explanation for these results was the inclusion of patients in home-hospitalization. This finding has important implications for the implementation of infection control bundle in PR-BSI prevention, especially regarding hand disinfection and skin antisepsis during PICC care and dressing management [12, 35].

This study also reported low rates of PICC related complications other than PR-BSI. We found an accidental withdrawal incidence rate of 1.6 per 1000 catheter days (N=61, 6.8%), lower than those reported by Valbousquet et al. (2.8 per 1000 catheter days) [17] and Grau et al. 8.0% [16]. However, others found lower rates at 2.4% [4] and 5% [18], respectively, but reported rates instead of incidence which limited comparison with our results. Importantly, accidental withdrawal was identified as a common complication in PICC use especially in patients older than 70 year-old, which is the median age in our study population [16, 53]. We reported a vein thrombosis incidence rate at 0.4 per 1000 catheter days, also lower than those previously reported [19, 53, 54]. PICCs are described as more thrombogenic than CVCs [19, 55], particularly in cephalic vein position [56]. Consequently, PICC were mainly inserted in basilic, or brachial vein as recommended in our local protocol. In addition, more than a third (27%) of the patients received

an anticoagulant therapy. This may have limited the incidence rate of thrombosis in our cohort.

This study has several limitations. First, the single centre design of the study could limit extrapolation of the results. Second, the relatively small size of our cohort limited the weight of some factors such as BMI > 40 kg/m², number of lumen or total parenteral nutrition which are recognized at risk factors for CR-BSI [40, 57]. However, to the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to analyse the association between clinical signs and PR-BSI. Third, the retrospective design of the study limits our analyses to available data in medical records and may induce bias in data collection and results interpretation. Some risk factors such as the microbial colonization at the catheter hub and at insertion site, or the outpatient/inpatient status, could not be assessed. However, combining medical, microbiological, and administrative data, added to the adjudication committee for PR-BSI diagnosis in accordance with international expert consensus tends to limit this bias.

## Conclusions

Complications occurred in 24% of PICC, and PR-BSI was the most prevalent one with a 1.9 per 1000 catheter days incidence rate. PR-BSIs were mainly caused by Enterobacterales and CoNS. Clinical signs and PICC maintenance duration ≥ 28 catheter days, had better NPVs than PPVs for PR-BSI diagnosis. Fever and chills had the best NPV and were independently associated with PR-BSI occurrence.

These results suggest that health workers should cautiously monitor PICC insertion site, and especially fever and chills, and limit the duration of PICC maintenance to the minimum required. They also prompt patients to self-monitoring. Further studies are mandatory to assess whether improving patients and healthcare workers education on PICC management through the development of an infection prevention bundle and continuous evaluation could reduce PR-BSI under 1 per 1000 catheter days.

## Abbreviations

<table><tr><td>AUC</td><td>Area under the ROC curve</td></tr><tr><td>BMI</td><td>Body mass index</td></tr><tr><td>CDC</td><td>Centers for disease control and prevention</td></tr><tr><td>CoNS</td><td>Coagulase negative staphylococci</td></tr><tr><td>CR</td><td>Carbapenem resistant</td></tr><tr><td>CRE</td><td>Carbapenem resistant enterobacterales</td></tr><tr><td>CR-BSI</td><td>Catheter-related bloodstream infections</td></tr><tr><td>CVC</td><td>Central venous catheters</td></tr><tr><td>ECDC</td><td>European centre for disease control and prevention</td></tr><tr><td>ESBL</td><td>Extended spectrum beta-lactamase</td></tr><tr><td>EUCAST</td><td>European committee on antimicrobial susceptibility testing</td></tr><tr><td>HR</td><td>Hazard ratio</td></tr><tr><td>IQR</td><td>Interquartile range</td></tr><tr><td>MRSA</td><td>Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus</td></tr><tr><td>NB-PRI</td><td>Non-bacteraemia PRI</td></tr></table>
NPV Negative predictive value

PICC Peripherally inserted central catheter

Pip-Taz Piperacillin-tazobactam

PPV Positive predictive value

PR-BSI PICC-related bloodstream infection

ROC Receiver operating characteristic

SF2H French society of infection control

SRLF French intensive care society

3GCR 3rd generation cephalosporin resistance

95%CI 95% confidence interval

## Acknowledgements

None.

## Author contributions

Conceptualization, A.S. and R.L.; methodology, A.S. and R.L.; software, K.B.-B. and R.L.; validation, J.O., A.S., R.L., and J.-PL.; formal analysis, K.B.-B., J.O., A.S. and R.L.; investigation K.B.-B.; writing—original draft preparation, K.B.-B.; writing—review and editing, J.O., R.L., and A.S.; supervision, R.L.; project administration, C.S., A.M., J.-P.B., A.S. and R.L. All authors reviewed the final version of the manuscript.

## Funding

This research received no external funding.

## Availability of data and materials

The authors consent to share the collected data with others. The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation. Data will be available immediately after the main publication and indefinitely.

## Declarations

### Ethics approval and consent to participate

The Institutional Review Board of Nimes University Hospital approved the study protocol (No. 22.03.06) and waived the need for signed patient consent.

### Consent for publication

Not applicable.

### Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Received: 10 November 2022 Accepted: 21 January 2023

Published online: 30 January 2023

## References

1. Hoshal VL. Total intravenous nutrition with peripherally inserted silicone elastomer central venous catheters. Arch Surg Chic Ill. 1960;1975(110):644-6. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.1975.01360 110190032.

2. Chopra V, Flanders SA, Saint S, Woller SC, O'Grady NP, Safdar N, et al. The michigan appropriateness guide for intravenous catheters (MAGIC): results from a multispecialty panel using the RAND/UCLA appropriate- ness method. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:S1-40. https://doi.org/10.7326/ M15-0744.

3. Velissaris D, Karamouzos V, Lagadinou M, Pierrakos C, Marangos M. Peripheral inserted central catheter use and related infections in clinical practice: a literature update. J Clin Med Res. 2019;11:237-46. https://doi. org/10.14740/jocmr3757.

4. Vidal V, Muller C, Jacquier A, Giorgi R, Le Corroller T, Gaubert JY, et al. Éval- uation prospective des complications des PICCs. J Radiol. 2008;89:495-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0221-0363(08)71453-7.

5. Al-Asadi O, Almusarhed M, Eldeeb H. Predictive risk factors of venous thromboembolism (VTE) associated with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) in ambulant solid cancer patients: retrospective single

Centre cohort study. Thromb J. 2019;17:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s12959-019-0191-y.

6. Chopra V, O'Malley M, Horowitz J, Zhang Q, McLaughlin E, Saint S, et al. Improving peripherally inserted central catheter appropriateness and reducing device-related complications: a quasiexperimental study in 52 Michigan hospitals. BMJ Qual Saf. 2022;31:23-30. https://doi.org/10.1136/ bmjqs-2021-013015.

7. Ajenjo MC, Morley JC, Russo AJ, McMullen KM, Robinson C, Williams RC, et al. Peripherally inserted central venous catheter-associated blood- stream infections in hospitalized adult patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011;32:125-30. https://doi.org/10.1086/657942.

8. Chopra V, O'Horo JC, Rogers MAM, Maki DG, Safdar N. The risk of blood- stream infection associated with peripherally inserted central catheters compared with central venous catheters in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2013;34:908-18. https://doi.org/10.1086/671737.

9. Chopra V, Ratz D, Kuhn L, Lopus T, Chenoweth C, Krein S. PICC-associated bloodstream infections: prevalence, patterns, and predictors. Am J Med. 2014;127:319-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2014.01.001.

10. Van Der Mee-Marquet N, Marie D, Rémi G, Florent G. Surveillance des infections associées aux dispositifs invasifs. Mission nationale SPIADI. Résultats de la surveillance menée en 2019; 2019. https://www.sante publiquefrance.fr/maladies-et-traumatismes/infections-associees-aux- soins-et-resistance-aux-antibiotiques/infections-associees-aux-soins/ documents/rapport-synthese/surveillance-des-infections-associees-aux- dispositifs-invasifs-mission-nationale-spiadi-results-de-la-surveillan ce-menee-en-2019. Accessed 14 Oct 2022.

11. Lee JH, Kim ET, Shim DJ, Kim IJ, Byeon JH, Lee IJ, et al. Prevalence and predictors of peripherally inserted central catheter-associated bloodstream infections in adults: a multicenter cohort study. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0213555. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213555.

12. Buetti N, Timsit J-F. Management and prevention of central venous catheter-related infections in the ICU. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;40:508-23. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1693705.

13. Bessis S, Cassir N, Meddeb L, Remacle AB, Soussan J, Vidal V, et al. Early mortality attributable to PICC-lines in 4 public hospitals of Marseille from 2010 to 2016 (Revised V3). Medicine (Baltimore). 2020;99:e18494. https:// doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000018494.

14. Pongruangporn M, Ajenjo MC, Russo AJ, McMullen KM, Robinson C, Williams RC, et al. Patient- and device-specific risk factors for peripherally inserted central venous catheter-related bloodstream infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2013;34:184-9. https://doi.org/10.1086/669083.

15. Milstone AM, Reich NG, Advani S, Yuan G, Bryant K, Coffin SE, et al. Cath- eter dwell time and CLABSIs in neonates With PICCs: a multicenter cohort study. Pediatrics. 2013;132:e1609-15. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds. 2013-1645.

16. Grau D, Clarivet B, Lotthé A, Bommart S, Parer S. Complications with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) used in hospitalized patients and outpatients: a prospective cohort study. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2017;6:18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-016-0161-0.

17. Valbousquet Schneider L, Duron S, Arnaud F-X, Bousquet A, Kervella Y, Bouzad C, et al. Evaluation of PICC complications in orthopedic inpatients with bone infection for long-term intravenous antibiotics therapy. J Vasc Access. 2015;16:299-308. https://doi.org/10.5301/jva.5000389.

18. Bouzad C, Duron S, Bousquet A, Arnaud F-X, Valbousquet L, Weber- Donat G, et al. Peripherally inserted central catheter-related infections in a cohort of hospitalized adult patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2016;39:385-93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-015-1182-4.

19. Chopra V, Anand S, Hickner A, Buist M, Rogers MA, Saint S, et al. Risk of venous thromboembolism associated with peripherally inserted central catheters: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2013;382:311- 25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60592-9.

20. Société Française d'hygiène hospitalière (SF2H). Bonnes pratiques et gestion des risques associés au PICC | 2013;XXI. https://www.sf2h.net/wp- content/uploads/2014/05/SF2H_bonnes-pratiques-et-gestion-des-risqu es-associes-au-PICC-2013.pdf. Accessed 12 Oct 2022.

21. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of clas- sifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021- 9681(87)90171-8.
22. EUCAST: MIC determination n.d. https://eucast.org/ast_of_bacteria/mic_determination/?no_cache=1 (Accessed Feb 14, 2022).

23. Timsit J-F, Baleine J, Bernard L, Calvino-Gunther S, Darmon M, Dellamonica J, et al. Expert consensus-based clinical practice guidelines management of intravascular catheters in the intensive care unit. Ann Intensive Care. 2020;10:118. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-020-00713-4.

24. Plachouras D, Lepape A, Suetens C. ECDC definitions and methods for the surveillance of healthcare-associated infections in intensive care units. Intensive Care Med. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-018-5113-0.

25. Plachouras D, Lepape A, Suetens C. Correction to: ECDC definitions and methods for the surveillance of healthcare-associated infections in intensive care units. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44:2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-018-5370-y.

26. Hansen S, Sohr D, Geffers C, Astagneau P, Blacky A, Koller W, et al. Concordance between European and US case definitions of healthcare-associated infections. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1186/2047-2994-1-28.

27. Vidal V. Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs): looking to the future with a critical eye. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2015;96:1103–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2015.10.002.

28. REPIAS. SPIADI 2021: Premiers résultats de la surveillance nationale 2021 n.d. https://www.spiadi.fr/results. Accessed 12 Oct 2022.

29. Daniau C, Léon L, Blanchard H, Bernet C, Caillet VE. Enquête nationale de prévalence des infections nosocomiales et des traitements anti-infectieux en établissements de santé. France, mai-juin. 2017;2017:12. https://www.cpias.fr/ES/surveillance/rapport_national_enp_2017.pdf. Accessed 12 Oct 2022.

30. Safdar N, Maki DG. Risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection with peripherally inserted central venous catheters used in hospitalized patients. Chest. 2005;128:489–95. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.128.2.489.

31. Maki DG, Kluger DM, Crnich CJ. The risk of bloodstream infection in adults with different intravascular devices: a systematic review of 200 published prospective studies. Mayo Clin Proc. 2006;81:1159–71. https://doi.org/10.4065/81.9.1159.

32. Leroyer C, Lashéras A, Marie V, Le Bras Y, Carteret T, Dupon M, et al. Prospective follow-up of complications related to peripherally inserted central catheters. Médecine Mal Infect. 2013;43:350–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medmal.2013.06.013.

33. de Grooth HJ, Timsit J-F, Mermel L, Mimoz O, Buetti N, du Cheyron D, et al. Validity of surrogate endpoints assessing central venous catheter-related infection: evidence from individual- and study-level analyses. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020;26:563–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2019.09.022.

34. Buetti N, Marschall J, Drees M, Fakh MG, Hadaway L, Maragakis LL, et al. Strategies to prevent central line-associated bloodstream infections in acute-care hospitals: 2022 update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2022;43:553–69. https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2022.87.

35. Ista E, van der Hoven B, Kornelisse RF, van der Starre C, Vos MC, Boersma E, et al. Effectiveness of insertion and maintenance bundles to prevent central-line-associated bloodstream infections in critically ill patients of all ages: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16:724–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(15)00409-0.

36. Lucet J-C, Bouadma L, Zahar J-R, Schwebel C, Geoffroy A, Pease S, et al. Infectious risk associated with arterial catheters compared with central venous catheters. Crit Care Med. 2010;38:1030–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181d4502e.

37. Krein SL, Saint S, Trautner BW, Kuhn L, Colozzi J, Ratz D, et al. Patient-reported complications related to peripherally inserted central catheters: a multicentre prospective cohort study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28:574–81. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008726.

38. Li X, Ding X, Shi P, Zhu Y, Huang Y, Li Q, et al. Clinical features and antimicrobial susceptibility profiles of culture-proven neonatal sepsis in a tertiary children's hospital, 2013 to 2017. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98:e14686. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000014686.

39. Sengupta A, Lehmann C, Diener-West M, Perl TM, Milstone AM. Catheter duration & risk of central line-associated bloodstream infection in neonates with PICCs. Pediatrics. 2010;125:648–53. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-2559.

40. Advani S, Reich NG, Sengupta A, Gosey L, Milstone AM. Central line-associated bloodstream infection in hospitalized children with peripherally inserted central venous catheters: extending risk analyses

outside the intensive care unit. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am. 2011;52:1108–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cir145.

41. Ohki Y, Maruyama K, Harigaya A, Kohno M, Arakawa H. Complications of peripherally inserted central venous catheter in Japanese neonatal intensive care units. Pediatr Int Off J Jpn Pediatr Soc. 2013;55:185–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/ped.12033.

42. Park S, Moon S, Pai H, Kim B. Appropriate duration of peripherally inserted central catheter maintenance to prevent central line-associated bloodstream infection. PLoS ONE. 2020;15:e0234966. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234966.

43. Rabelo-Silva ER, Lourenço SA, Maestri RN, da Luz CC, Pupin VC, Cechinel RB, et al. Patterns, appropriateness and outcomes of peripherally inserted central catheter use in Brazil: a multicentre study of 12 725 catheters. BMJ Qual Saf. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2021-013869.

44. Liu X, Tao S, Ji H, Chen S, Gu Y, Jin X. Risk factors for peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-associated infections in patients receiving chemotherapy and the preventive effect of a self-efficacy intervention program: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Palliat Med. 2021;10:9398–405. https://doi.org/10.21037/apm-21-1848.

45. Mielke D, Wittig A, Teichgräber U. Peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC) in outpatient and inpatient oncological treatment. Support Care Cancer. 2020;28:4753–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-019-05276-0.

46. Baxi SM, Shuman EK, Scipione CA, Chen B, Sharma A, Rasanathan JJK, et al. Impact of postplacement adjustment of peripherally inserted central catheters on the risk of bloodstream infection and venous thrombus formation. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2013;34:785–92. https://doi.org/10.1086/671266.

47. Kagan E, Salgado CD, Banks AL, Marculescu CE, Cantey JR. Peripherally inserted central catheter-associated bloodstream infection: risk factors and the role of antibiotic-impregnated catheters for prevention. Am J Infect Control. 2019;47:191–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2018.07.006.

48. Braun E, Hussein K, Geffen Y, Rabino G, Bar-Lavie Y, Paul M. Predominance of gram-negative bacilli among patients with catheter-related bloodstream infections. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20:0627–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-0691.12565.

49. Badia-Cebada L, Peñafiel J, Saliba P, Andrés M, Càmara J, Domenech D, et al. Trends in the epidemiology of catheter-related bloodstream infections; towards a paradigm shift, Spain, 2007 to 2019. Eurosurveillance. 2022;27:2100610. https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2022.27.19.2100610.

50. Ripa M, Morata L, Rodríguez-Núñez O, Cardozo C, Puerta-Alcalde P, Hernández-Meneses M, et al. Short-term peripheral venous catheter-related bloodstream infections: evidence for increasing prevalence of gram-negative microorganisms from a 25-year prospective observational study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62:e00892-e918. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00892-18.

51. Marcos M, Soriano A, Iñurrieta A, Martínez JA, Romero A, Cobos N, et al. Changing epidemiology of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infections: increasing prevalence of gram-negative pathogens. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011;66:2119–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkr231.

52. Dropulic LK, Lederman HM. Overview of infections in the immunocompromised host. Microbiol Spectr. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1128/microbiolspec.DMIH2-0026-2016.

53. Kang J, Chen W, Sun W, Ge R, Li H, Ma E, et al. Peripherally inserted central catheter-related complications in cancer patients: a prospective study of over 50,000 catheter days. J Vasc Access. 2017;18:153–7. https://doi.org/10.5301/jva.5000670.

54. Scrivens N, Sabri E, Bredeson C, McDiarmid S. Comparison of complication rates and incidences associated with different peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) in patients with hematological malignancies: a retrospective cohort study. Leuk Lymphoma. 2020;61:156–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/10428194.2019.1646908.

55. Zochios V, Umar I, Simpson N, Jones N. Peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-related thrombosis in critically ill patients. J Vasc Access. 2014;15:329–37. https://doi.org/10.5301/jva.5000239.

56. Allen AW, Megargell JL, Brown DB, Lynch FC, Singh H, Singh Y, et al. Venous thrombosis associated with the placement of peripherally inserted central catheters. J Vasc Interv Radiol JIVR. 2000;11:1309–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1051-0443(07)61307-4.
57. González S, Jiménez P, Saavedra P, Macías D, Loza A, León C, et al. Five-year outcome of peripherally inserted central catheters in adults: a separated infectious and thrombotic complications analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2021;42:833–41. https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2020.1300.

**Publisher’s Note**

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

Ready to submit your research? Choose BMC and benefit from:

* fast, convenient online submission

* thorough peer review by experienced researchers in your field

* rapid publication on acceptance

* support for research data, including large and complex data types

* gold Open Access which fosters wider collaboration and increased citations

* maximum visibility for your research: over 100M website views per year

At BMC, research is always in progress.

Learn more biomedcentral.com/submissions

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

BMC