PurposeFew prospective follow-up studies evaluating the use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) to deliver chemotherapy and/or home parenteral nutrition (HPN) have focused exclusively on oncology outpatients. The aim of this prospective study was to assess the reliability and the safety of PICCs over a 5-year use in non-hospitalized cancer patients requiring long-term intravenous therapies.MethodsSince June 2008, all adult oncology outpatient candidates for PICC insertion were consecutively enrolled and the incidence of catheter-related complications was investigated. The follow-up continued until the PICC removal.ResultsTwo hundred sixty-nine PICCs in 250 patients (98 % with solid malignancies) were studied, for a total of 55,293 catheter days (median dwell time 184 days, range 15–1,384). All patients received HPN and 71 % received chemotherapy during the study period. The incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) was low (0.05 per 1,000 catheter days), PICC-related symptomatic thrombosis was rare (1.1 %; 0.05 per 1,000 catheter days), and mechanical complications were uncommon (13.1 %; 0.63 per 1,000 catheter days). The overall complication rate was 17.5 % (0.85 per 1,000 catheter days) and PICCs were removed because of complications only in 7 % of cases. The main findings of this study were that, if accurately managed, PICCs can be safely used in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy and/or HPN, recording a low incidence of CRBSI, thrombosis, and mechanical complications; a long catheter life span; and a low probability of catheter removal because of complications.ConclusionsOur study suggests that PICCs can be successfully utilized as safe and long-lasting venous access devices in non-hospitalized cancer patients.

Background Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are central venous catheters (CVCs) that are commonly used in onco‐hematologic settings for chemotherapy administration. As there is insufficient evidence to recommend a specific CVC for chemotherapy administration, we aimed to ascertain PICC‐related adverse events (AEs) and identify independent predictors of PICC removal in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy. Materials and Methods Information on adult patients with cancer with a PICC inserted for chemotherapy administration between September 2007 and December 2014 was extracted from six hospital databases. The primary outcome was PICC removal due to PICC‐related AEs (occlusion, infection, or symptomatic thrombosis). Independent predictors of PICC removal were identified using a multivariate Cox regression model. Results Among the 2,477 included patients, 419 PICC‐related AEs (16.9%; 1.09 AEs per 1,000 PICC‐days) were reported. AEs increased when PICC was inserted at the brachial site (hazard ratio [HR], 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02–1.84) and with open systems (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.24–2.88) and decreased in older men (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.49–0.81). Conclusion Use of PICC for chemotherapy administration was associated with a low all‐AEs rate. The basilic vein was the safer site, and valved systems had fewer AEs than open systems. More research is needed to explore the interaction between AEs, sex, and age. Implications for Practice These findings provide clinicians with evidence that peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are safe for chemotherapy administration. They also suggest that clinicians should limit the use of open systems when long chemotherapy regimens are scheduled. Moreover, alternatives to PICCs should be considered when administering chemotherapy to young men.

Background: Vascular access by means of intravenous catheters is essential for the safe, effective and cost-efficient delivery of intravenous fluids, antibiotics, nutrition and chemotherapy, but the use of these devices is not without complications. Purpose: A faculty of multidisciplinary European vascular access team (VAT) Leads/Members and experts sought to reframe how the implementation of a VAT could have positive impacts on patients and hospitals. Methods: Interview data from a Faculty of nine VAT Leads/Members and experts from six European countries on the impact of multidisciplinary VATs in modern healthcare were assessed. A literature search was conducted that included Medline ® -cited peer-reviewed articles published in the past 10 years in order to identify impact data and post-implementation of a multidisciplinary VAT that support the benefits to patient safety and satisfaction and to hospital efficiencies reported in the interview program. Results: While VATs vary in structure and function, clarity of purpose and supportive training and education are key. Barriers to the implementation of VATs show commonality across countries, such as lack of investment, insufficient training and lack of awareness. Proven markers of VAT success include rapid referrals, improved patient outcomes and improved organizational efficiency. Standardization of outcomes data capture, processing and reporting are key to monitoring performance against baseline. Awareness of the cost of complications arising from inappropriate choice and placement, and poor care and maintenance, of the vascular access device must be raised. Conclusions:The implementation of VATs can positively impact patient safety and satisfaction, improve organizational efficiencies and cost-effectiveness, and could create new opportunities for in-and outpatient services, beneficial to both patients and institutions.

Midline catheters (MCs) may be useful to avoid repeated venipuncture in patients requiring prolonged intravenous infusions with limited adverse events (AEs). We analyzed 2 Italian hospital databases to ascertain the safety of MCs. Among 1,538 adult patients, 154 MC-related AEs (10%; 2.49 AEs per 1,000 MC days) were reported.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;875-877.

The sN biopsy proved feasible, with a rather short learning curve. The focused analysis of the sN by means of serial sectioning improved the detection rate of nodal metastasis compared to standard bi-valving examination, so that a more accurate nodal staging should be expected; finally, an elective localization of metastasis within the sN was observed in almost one third of regional node-positive patients.

Microcystic urothelial cell carcinoma is a rare variant of urothelial cell carcinoma which occurs in the bladder and, rarely, in the renal pelvis. Neuroendocrine differentiation is uncommon in pure urothelial carcinoma and is more frequently found in neoplasms with glandular differentiation. We report a case of microcystic urothelial cell carcinoma arising in renal pelvis and showing focal neuroendocrine differentiation. A 55-year-old man with a history of non-small cell cancer of the lung presented with abdominal pain and hematuria. Imaging studies and gross examination revealed a partially cystic mass in the left kidney. Microscopic examination disclosed invasive carcinoma with prominent microcystic features, with microcysts lined by low columnar and flat cells. Immunohistochemical analysis confirmed the urothelial histotype (positive for thrombomodulin, p63 and high-molecular-weight cytokeratins) and disclosed focal neuroendocrine differentiation.

One of the major long-term complications in patients with LVAD is the development of infections of the exit site of the driveline. The trauma of this skin region promotes the onset and maintenance of an inflammatory process and local infectious. Avoiding excessive mobilization of the driveline is likely to reduce the incidence of infections of the exit site and improve the quality-of-life.

Background: Whether peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are appropriate as safe and durable venous access devices (VADs) is still controversial. The aim of this 7-year, prospective cohort study was to compare the incidence rate differences of catheter-related complications (CRCs) among 4 types of central VADs in cancer patients receiving home parenteral nutrition (HPN). Methods: We enrolled all adult cancer outpatients who were candidates for HPN and who had a central VAD inserted during the study period, focusing on the incidence rate of CRCs. Results: We evaluated 854 central VADs (401 PICCs, 137 nontunneled centrally inserted central catheters [CICCs], 118 tunneled-cuffed CICCs, and 198 ports) in 761 patients, for a total of 169,116 catheter-days. Overall, the rate of total CRCs was 1.08/1000 catheter-days. The incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections was low (0.29/1000), particularly for PICCs (0.08/1000; P < .001 vs tunneled-cuffed CICCs) and for ports (0.21/1000; P < .019 vs tunneled-cuffed CICCs). The rates of mechanical complications (0.58/1000) and of catheter-related symptomatic thrombosis (0.09/1000) were low and similar for PICCs, tunneled-cuffed CICCs, and ports. In terms of duration and removal rate due to complications, PICCs were like tunneled-cuffed CICCs and ports. Altogether, PICCs had fewer total complications than tunneled-cuffed CICCs (P < .001), there was no difference in total complications between PICCs and ports. Conclusion: PICCs had significantly better outcomes than tunneled-cuffed CICCs and were safe and durable as ports. Our extensive, long-term study suggests that PICCs can be successfully used as safe and long-lasting VADs for HPN in cancer patients.