A Comparative Study of Peripherally Implanted Venous Devices (PICC Lines versus Midlines)

Objectives: We sought to (1) set indications of PICC lines and midlines, (2) detail the technique of their insertion, and (3) compare them to one another and their complications to those of similar devices.

Background: PICC lines and midlines are two types of vascular access devices having expanded since a decade. They came mainly as an alternative to central venous catheters and chemotherapy ports when the capital venous is poor. However, the increasing types of vascular accesses, the same insertion site, peripherally in the arm, can be a source of confusion of these devices.

Materials and Methods: We reviewed 93 cases of peripherally implanted devices over a period of 41 months at a single center, the Radiology Department of The Military Hospital of Rabat in Morocco, analyzing patients age, indications of catheters, duration of implantation, frequency of maintenance, and complications.

Results: The two main indications were chemotherapy (75% PICC lines vs. 17% midlines) and antibiotics therapy (20% PICC lines vs. 70% midlines). Per procedural complications were seen with PICC lines while postprocedural ones were more frequent with midlines. These complications were dominated by phlebitis met in 3% of PICC Lines versus 35.7% of midlines and accidental removal met in 3 versus 28.5%, respectively.

Conclusion: Peripherally inserted catheters are of great contribution especially for oncology and hematology patients. They require to be well formed to decrease complications which remain less important or comparable to those of other vascular access devices whose indications are sometimes limited.

Publication History

Article published online:
14 December 2021