Peripherally inserted central catheters: Guidance with use of US versus venography in 2,650 patients

Howard B. Chrisman*, Reed A. Omary, Albert A. Nemcek, Robert K. Ryu, Mark B. Saker, Robert L. Vogelzang

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

37 Scopus citations


PURPOSE: To compare technical success and initial complication rates of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) by interventional radiologists using ultrasound (US) or venographic guidance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: With use of a computer database, the authors retrospectively reviewed 2,650 procedures, 2,126 of which were performed with US and 524 with venography. Technical success was defined as placement of a PICC. Initial complications were defined as development of a hematoma, inadvertent arterial puncture, or neuropathy. Statistical significance was assessed using the χ2 test. RESULTS: During 33 consecutive months, 2,650 procedures were performed with a complication rate of 1.0%. The technical success rate was 95.8% for venography and 99.6% for US. The initial complication rate was 0.75% for venography and 1.08% for US. There was no statistically significant difference in immediate complication rates (P = .50); however, there is statistical significance in regard to technical success (P < .001). CONCLUSION: There is no difference in initial complication rates when comparing US and venographic guidance for PICC insertion. The decision to use either method can be based on clinical grounds and/or physician preference, although US has a higher initial success rate.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)473-475
Number of pages3
JournalJournal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology
Issue number4
StatePublished - Apr 1999


  • Central venous access
  • Ultrasound (US) guidance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Peripherally inserted central catheters: Guidance with use of US versus venography in 2,650 patients'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this