Superior success rate of intracavitary electrocardiogram guidance for peripherally inserted central catheter placement in patients with cancer: A randomized open-label controlled multicenter study

PLoS One. 2017 Mar 9;12(3):e0171630. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171630. eCollection 2017.

Abstract

Background: Intracavitary electrocardiogram (IC ECG) guidance emerges as a new technique for peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) placement and demonstrates many potential advantages in recent observational studies.

Aims: To determine whether IC ECG-guided PICCs provide more accurate positioning of catheter tips compared to conventional anatomical landmarks in patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy.

Methods: In this multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled study (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02409589), a total of 1,007 adult patients were assigned to receive either IC ECG guidance (n = 500) or anatomical landmark guidance (n = 507) for PICC positioning. The confirmative catheter tip positioning x-ray data were centrally interpreted by independent radiologists. All reported analyses in the overall population were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Analyses of pre-specified subgroups and a selected large subpopulation were conducted to explore consistency and accuracy.

Results: In the IC ECG-guided group, the first-attempt success rate was 89.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86.5% to 91.9%), which was significantly higher than 77.4% (95% CI, 73.7% to 81.0%) in the anatomical landmark group (P < 0.0001). This trend of superiority of IC ECG guidance was consistently noted in almost all prespecified patient subgroups and two selected large subpopulations, even when using optimal target rates for measurement. In contrast, the superiority nearly disappeared when PICCs were used via the left instead of right arms (interaction P-value = 0.021). No catheter-related adverse events were reported during the PICC intra-procedures in either group.

Conclusions: Our findings indicated that the IC ECG-guided method had a more favorable positioning accuracy versus traditional anatomical landmarks for PICC placement in adult patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy. Furthermore, there were no significant safety concerns reported for catheterization using the two techniques.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Multicenter Study
  • Randomized Controlled Trial

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Anatomic Landmarks*
  • Catheterization, Central Venous / instrumentation
  • Catheterization, Central Venous / methods*
  • Catheterization, Peripheral / instrumentation
  • Catheterization, Peripheral / methods*
  • Central Venous Catheters*
  • Electrocardiography / methods*
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Middle Aged
  • Neoplasms / therapy*
  • Patient Positioning
  • Predictive Value of Tests

Associated data

  • ClinicalTrials.gov/NCT02409589

Grants and funding

This work was supported by Drum Tower Hospital-based Science and Research Fund (No: 2015-001). This study was funded by Key Project of Medical Science and Technology Development, Nanjing Health Bureau (No: ZKX15017). The funding sources had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, preparation of the manuscript, or decision to publish. The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study and had the final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.