Catheter-Associated Thrombosis

Definitions

1.1 Catheter-Associated Thrombosis (CAT)

Catheter-associated thrombosis refers to thrombus formation that develops as an inflammatory response to vessel wall injury caused by an indwelling vascular access device. On ultrasound examination, CAT appears as an anechoic or hypoechoic mass that partially or completely occludes the vessel lumen.

CAT is classified according to anatomical location (deep versus superficial veins) and clinical presentation (symptomatic versus asymptomatic). The majority of CAT cases are asymptomatic. Although overall rates remain relatively low, thrombotic complications can impair device function, delay treatment, necessitate anticoagulation therapy, cause premature device removal, increase healthcare costs, and potentially lead to post-thrombotic syndrome.^[39,12]

1.2 Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT)

Deep vein thrombosis involves thrombus formation within the deep venous system. In the upper extremity, this includes the brachial, axillary, subclavian, and internal jugular veins. In the lower extremity, affected vessels include the iliac, femoral, and popliteal veins. Diagnosis is established through compression ultrasonography, venography, or computed tomography imaging.^[12,39]

Upper extremity DVT (UE-DVT) frequently occurs in association with VADs placed in smaller arm vessels where blood flow velocity is reduced.

1.3 Superficial Vein Thrombosis (SVT)

Superficial vein thrombosis affects the superficial venous system, including the basilic and cephalic veins in the upper extremity and the saphenous veins in the lower extremity.

1.4 Venous Thromboembolism (VTE)

Venous thromboembolism encompasses both deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Some clinical studies also include superficial vein thrombosis within this category.

1.5 Fibroblastic Sleeve

A fibroblastic sleeve is a sheath of connective tissue that forms around an indwelling catheter as part of the body’s adaptive response to a foreign object. Unlike thrombus, this structure does not originate from the vessel wall. Histologically, it contains fibroblasts, smooth muscle cells, and collagen. While typically asymptomatic, a fibroblastic sleeve can cause catheter dysfunction if it obstructs the catheter tip.^[70]

1.6 Post-Thrombotic Syndrome (PTS)

Post-thrombotic syndrome is a chronic complication that may develop following venous thrombosis, most commonly after DVT. Clinical manifestations include persistent pain, tenderness, edema, and skin changes in the affected extremity. Endothelial injury from VAD insertion represents a potential contributing factor.^[54,68]

Risk Factor Identification

Comprehensive risk assessment should be performed for all patients requiring vascular access to inform device planning, guide monitoring intensity, and determine whether thromboprophylaxis is indicated.

2.1 Patient-Related Risk Factors

Multiple systemic conditions increase susceptibility to catheter-associated thrombosis. Active malignancy represents a significant risk factor, with thrombotic risk influenced by cancer type, tumor burden, and disease characteristics. Patients receiving chemotherapy face elevated risk compared to those not on active treatment.^[36,42,20]

Metabolic and endocrine conditions associated with increased CAT risk include diabetes mellitus and obesity.^[62] Inherited thrombophilias such as Factor V Leiden mutation, protein C deficiency, and protein S deficiency predispose patients to thrombotic events, although routine thrombophilia screening is not recommended for pediatric patients with catheter-associated DVT.^[49,26]

Critical illness substantially elevates thrombotic risk across patient populations. Personal or family history of prior thrombosis should be considered during risk stratification.^[36,66]

Additional patient factors that influence CAT risk include SARS-CoV-2 infection, patient age (though this varies considerably across studies and populations), pregnancy, elevated triglycerides, elevated low-density lipoprotein levels, ethnicity (with higher risk reported in Black or African American populations), reduced functional status (as measured by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance scores), hospital readmission shortly after central vascular access device insertion, inadequate hydration and nutritional status, non-O blood types, and receipt of blood transfusions.^{[39,65,32,59,22]}

2.2 Device-Related Risk Factors

Characteristics of the vascular access device and insertion technique significantly influence thrombotic risk. Catheter tip malposition outside the optimal target zone increases thrombus formation.^[10] A higher catheter-to-vessel ratio, reflecting a larger catheter diameter relative to vessel size, reduces blood flow around the device and promotes thrombus development.^[4,72]

Additional device-related factors include reduced blood flow velocity in the vessel segment containing the VAD, endothelial injury from the catheter or infused solutions, multiple insertion attempts, prolonged device dwell time, increased arm circumference, greater vein depth from the skin surface, and presence of a concurrent VAD in the same venous system.^{[39,12,72,31,35]}

Research suggests that localized factors in the immediate area of the device may contribute more substantially to early thrombotic risk (within the first two weeks after insertion) than systemic factors.^[10] In pediatric patients, repeated PICC insertions in the same arm have been associated with increased risk and accelerated progression of symptomatic thrombosis.^[24]

2.3 Risk Assessment Tools

Various scoring systems have been studied to identify patients at elevated risk for catheter-associated thrombosis, primarily in patients receiving peripherally inserted central catheters. The Caprini Risk Assessment Model may have predictive value for PICC-related thrombosis, particularly in high-risk populations, though its moderate sensitivity and low specificity may result in overdiagnosis.^[41,40,21]

The Michigan Risk Score was developed specifically to predict PICC-associated thrombosis and has been validated in hospitalized populations.^[13,34] Emerging research indicates that machine learning approaches incorporating genetic data may enhance identification of high-risk patients.^[44]

Further validation studies are needed before these tools can be recommended for routine clinical application across all patient populations.

Thrombosis Prevention Through Device Selection

Device selection should integrate assessment of the patient’s vascular anatomy, treatment requirements, anticipated dwell time, and individual preferences including laterality considerations.

3.1 General Principles of Device Selection

Selecting the smallest diameter catheter with the fewest lumens capable of delivering the prescribed infusion therapy reduces thrombotic risk while maintaining clinical functionality.^{[42,58,24,5,1]}

3.2 Central Venous Access Device Considerations

For nontunneled central venous catheters in adult intensive care patients, the subclavian insertion site carries lower thrombotic risk compared to jugular or femoral approaches. However, subclavian access should be avoided in patients with chronic kidney disease due to increased risk of central venous stenosis that could compromise future dialysis access. The femoral site is associated with the highest thrombotic risk among central venous insertion locations.^[52,57,11]

3.3 Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters

PICCs have been associated with higher DVT rates than other central venous access devices, primarily due to reduced blood velocity in upper extremity vessels. This risk is particularly elevated in critically ill patients.^{[12,35,58,25,8]}

However, meta-analytic data indicate that when optimal insertion techniques are employed and single-lumen, smaller diameter devices are selected, PICC-related DVT rates become comparable to other central venous access options.^[58]

A bundled approach to PICC insertion that incorporates systematic ultrasound vessel evaluation, site optimization, techniques that minimize vascular trauma, verified optimal tip placement, appropriate catheter-to-vein ratio (not exceeding 45%), and use of the smallest diameter and fewest lumens necessary has been shown to reduce thrombotic complications.^[58,4,56]

Evidence from a single-center randomized controlled trial suggests that tunneled PICCs may have lower thrombosis incidence and reduced maintenance costs compared to nontunneled PICCs, though additional research is warranted.^[17]

3.4 Implanted Vascular Access Ports in Oncology

For patients receiving cancer treatment, implanted vascular access ports are associated with lower thrombotic risk compared to PICCs and may be preferred when long-term access is anticipated.^[20,9,67,47]

The optimal location for port placement (chest versus arm) should balance known risks with patient preference and treatment requirements. Meta-analytic data suggest that total complication rates, including thrombosis, do not differ significantly between arm-placed and chest-placed ports in general oncology populations.^[38] However, retrospective data in breast cancer patients specifically have shown increased symptomatic UE-DVT with arm-placed ports compared to chest-placed devices.^[69]

For adult cancer outpatients requiring home parenteral nutrition, prospective data indicate that symptomatic catheter-related thrombosis rates are similarly low across PICCs, tunneled-cuffed catheters, and implanted ports.^[16]

3.5 Pediatric Device Selection

In children with cancer diagnoses, implanted ports are the preferred vascular access device for reducing VTE risk compared to tunneled and nontunneled central venous catheters.^[26] Multicenter prospective data confirm that PICCs are associated with significantly higher catheter-related VTE risk than tunneled lines in pediatric patients.^[32]

3.6 Midline Catheters

Utilization of midline catheters has expanded substantially, creating an urgent need for high-quality comparative research. Systematic review and meta-analysis including over 40,000 adult patients found that VTE prevalence with midline catheters was significantly higher than with PICCs.^[45,3,15,60] Pediatric data on midline-associated thrombotic risk remain limited.

3.7 Thromboresistant Catheter Technologies

Catheter surface modifications and material innovations including hydrogel coatings, drug-eluting surfaces, and hydrophilic or hydrophobic characteristics represent an evolving area of research with potential for reducing thrombotic risk. However, confirmatory clinical trials with adequate sample sizes are needed before specific product recommendations can be made.^{[50,63,48,71,2,7,75,23]}

3.8 Arterial Catheter Considerations

Thrombotic risk with arterial catheters can be minimized through ultrasound-guided insertion, optimization of catheter entry angle and intraluminal length, secure stabilization, and frequent monitoring of distal circulatory status.^[77,30,27]

Insertion Technique and Early Prevention

4.1 Qualified Inserters and Vascular Visualization

All vascular access devices should be inserted by clinicians with specific competency-based training who utilize real-time vascular visualization technology. Ultrasound guidance improves first-attempt success rates and reduces vascular trauma.^[72,35,4,70]

4.2 Central Venous Catheter Tip Positioning

Optimal tip position for central venous access devices inserted via upper body sites is the lower third of the superior vena cava or upper third of the right atrium at or near the cavoatrial junction for both adult and pediatric patients. For devices inserted via lower body sites, the catheter tip should be positioned in the inferior vena cava above the level of the diaphragm.

Electrocardiography-guided tip positioning for PICCs has been associated with reduced thrombotic complications compared to traditional positioning methods.^[35,76]

For umbilical venous catheters in neonates, proper tip positioning must be verified before use to prevent thrombotic complications including portal vein thrombosis.^[6]

4.3 Catheter-to-Vessel Ratio

The catheter-to-vessel ratio should be measured prior to insertion using ultrasound assessment. A ratio not exceeding 45% is recommended to maintain adequate blood flow around the catheter and reduce thrombotic risk.^{[39,35,10,4,56,19]}

4.4 Catheter Exchange Considerations

PICC exchange over guidewire has been independently associated with approximately twofold increased thrombosis risk in retrospective analysis. This elevated risk may be influenced by the fact that patients requiring exchange were more likely to have multilumen devices.^[14]

4.5 Post-Insertion Interventions

Upper extremity exercise may reduce venous stasis and lower thrombotic risk. Handgrip exercise using an elastic ball performed three to six times daily for three weeks following PICC insertion was associated with decreased incidence of ultrasound-confirmed DVT in patients with cancer.^[43,72,55] Further research is needed to identify optimal post-insertion nursing interventions for thrombosis prevention.

4.6 Pharmacologic Thromboprophylaxis

Universal prophylactic anticoagulation for all patients with central venous access has not been established as standard practice. Decisions regarding thromboprophylaxis should be individualized based on patient-specific risk factors.^[58,37]

For patients with cancer requiring central venous access for treatment, VTE prophylaxis is recommended and has not been associated with increased major bleeding risk.^[20,37,33]

In pediatric populations, the role of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis remains unclear. However, evidence from specific pediatric subgroups suggests that prophylactic anticoagulation may decrease CAT risk without increasing bleeding complications, including in children with inflammatory bowel disease and following infant cardiac surgery.^[18,64,53]

Clinical Monitoring and Detection

5.1 Recognition of Clinical Manifestations

Clinicians must recognize that catheter-associated DVT frequently presents without overt signs or symptoms. When clinical manifestations do occur, they result from obstruction of venous return and may include pain in the affected extremity, shoulder, neck, or chest; unilateral edema; erythema; and visible engorgement of peripheral veins in the involved extremity.^[39,21]

5.2 Extremity Measurement Protocol

Baseline circumference of the extremity should be measured and documented at the time of PICC or midline catheter insertion, with the precise anatomical location noted to ensure measurement consistency. Circumference should be reassessed whenever edema or signs suggestive of DVT are observed.

In adult patients with PICCs, an increase in mid-arm circumference of 3 centimeters or greater has been associated with catheter-related DVT.^[39,21,46]

5.3 Pulmonary Embolism

Pulmonary embolism secondary to catheter-associated thrombosis is uncommon but has been reported in association with both central venous catheters and midline catheters.^[12,2,29,74]

5.4 Post-Thrombotic Syndrome

Clinicians should recognize post-thrombotic syndrome as a potential long-term complication of catheter-associated DVT. This chronic condition is characterized by persistent pain, swelling, and skin changes in the affected extremity and may significantly impact patient quality of life.^[72,54,68]

Diagnostic Confirmation and Treatment

6.1 Diagnostic Criteria

Catheter-associated DVT is confirmed using color-flow Doppler ultrasonography when at least two of the following findings are present: an echogenic mass within the venous structure under evaluation; noncompressibility of the vein; abnormal color Doppler flow pattern; or venous filling defect.

For evaluation of more proximal veins such as the brachiocephalic vein, which may be obscured by the clavicle or ribs on ultrasound, contrast venography may provide superior visualization.^{[39,12,44,32,47]}

6.2 Catheter Management in Confirmed Thrombosis

The presence of catheter-associated DVT does not automatically mandate device removal. When the catheter remains correctly positioned, functional, and necessary for ongoing infusion therapy, it may be retained. The decision to remove a central venous access device should be individualized based on the patient’s overall clinical status, symptom severity, imaging findings, and treatment requirements.^[20,61,51]

6.3 Anticoagulation Therapy

Treatment of confirmed catheter-associated DVT includes anticoagulation for a minimum of three months following diagnosis. For patients with indwelling devices anticipated to remain for extended periods, anticoagulation should continue for the duration of catheter dwell time.

Patients with severe symptoms may benefit from unfractionated heparin infusion or catheter-directed thrombolysis, though these interventions require careful assessment of bleeding risk and patient stability.^[37,20,59]

Device Removal

7.1 Timely Removal

All vascular access devices should be removed promptly when no longer clinically indicated. Unnecessary prolongation of device dwell time increases cumulative thrombotic risk.

7.2 Implanted Port Considerations

Following completion of chemotherapy, the decision to retain or remove an implanted port requires careful evaluation of the patient’s risk profile, potential need for future vascular access, and patient preferences. Routine port removal at treatment completion is not universally recommended, but ongoing surveillance is warranted if the device is retained.^[69]

Special Populations

8.1 Oncology Patients

Patients with active malignancy represent a high-risk population for catheter-associated thrombosis. Risk is influenced by cancer type, tumor characteristics, active chemotherapy administration, and functional status. Evidence supports use of thromboprophylaxis during cancer treatment requiring central venous access. Implanted ports are generally preferred for long-term access needs. Device selection should incorporate assessment of treatment duration, infusion requirements, and patient preference.

8.2 Critically Ill Patients

Critical illness elevates thrombotic risk across all vascular access types. PICCs in particular carry increased thrombotic risk in intensive care populations. When central venous access is required, subclavian insertion may offer lower thrombotic risk than internal jugular or femoral approaches in patients without chronic kidney disease.

8.3 Pediatric Patients

Children require age-appropriate risk assessment and device selection. Implanted ports are preferred for pediatric oncology patients requiring long-term access. Repeated PICC insertions in the same extremity should be avoided when possible due to cumulative thrombotic risk. Routine thrombophilia testing is not recommended following catheter-associated DVT in children.

8.4 Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease

Preservation of the venous system for potential future dialysis access is paramount. Subclavian catheterization should be avoided due to increased risk of central venous stenosis. Device selection should minimize central venous trauma while meeting immediate therapeutic needs.

Key Recommendations

Comprehensive risk assessment should precede vascular access device selection for all patients. Risk factors span patient-specific conditions, device characteristics, and insertion technique variables. Prevention strategies include selecting the smallest appropriate device, ensuring optimal tip positioning, maintaining catheter-to-vessel ratios below 45%, and considering thromboprophylaxis in high-risk populations.

Clinical monitoring should include baseline and serial extremity measurements for PICCs and midline catheters, with recognition that most catheter-associated thrombosis is asymptomatic. Diagnosis requires color-flow Doppler ultrasound demonstrating characteristic findings. Confirmed thrombosis is treated with anticoagulation for at least three months, with catheter retention appropriate when the device remains functional and necessary.

Devices should be removed promptly when no longer clinically indicated to minimize cumulative risk.

References

1. Bahl A, Alsbrooks K, Gala S, Hoerauf K. Symptomatic deep vein thrombosis associated with peripherally inserted central catheters of different diameters: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2023;29. doi:10.1177/10760296221144041

2. Bahl A, Diloreto E, Jankowski D, Hijazi M, Chen NW. Comparison of 2 midline catheter devices with differing antithrombogenic mechanisms for catheter-related thrombosis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(10):e2127836. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.27836

3. Bahl A, Karabon P, Chu D. Comparison of venous thrombosis complications in midlines versus peripherally inserted central catheters: are midlines the safer option? Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2019;25:1076029619839150. doi:10.1177/1076029619839150

4. Balsorano P, Virgili G, Villa G, et al. Peripherally inserted central catheter-related thrombosis rate in modern vascular access era—when insertion technique matters: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Vasc Access. 2020;21(1):45-54. doi:10.1177/1129729819852203

5. Baskin K, Mermel LA, Saad TF, et al. Evidence-based strategies and recommendations for preservation of central venous access in children. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2019;43(5):591-614. doi:10.1002/jpen.1591

6. Bersani I, Piersigilli F, Iacona G, et al. Incidence of umbilical vein catheter-associated thrombosis of the portal system: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Hepatol. 2021;13(11):1802-1815. doi:10.4254/wjh.v13.i11.1802

7. Bunch J. A retrospective assessment of midline catheter failures focusing on catheter composition. J Infus Nurs. 2022;45(5):270-278. doi:10.1097/NAN.0000000000000484

8. Campagna S, Gonella S, Berchialla P, et al. A retrospective study of the safety of over 100,000 peripherally-inserted central catheters days for parenteral supportive treatments. Res Nurs Health. 2019;42(3):198-204. doi:10.1002/nur.21939

9. Capozzi VA, Monfardini L, Sozzi G, et al. Peripherally inserted central venous catheters versus totally implantable venous access device for chemotherapy administration: a meta-analysis on gynecological cancer patients. Acta Biomedica. 2021;92(5):e2021257. doi:10.23750/abm.v92i5.11844

10. Chen H, Tao L, Zhang X, et al. The effect of systemic and local risk factors on triggering peripherally inserted central catheter-related thrombosis in cancer patients: a prospective cohort study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2021;121:104003. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2021.104003

11. Chopra V. Central venous access: device and site selection in adults. Wolters Kluwer. Updated January 2022.

12. Chopra V, Anand S, Hickner A, et al. Risk of venous thromboembolism associated with peripherally inserted central catheters: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2013;382(9889):311-325. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60592-9

13. Chopra V, Kaatz S, Conlon A, et al. The Michigan Risk Score to predict peripherally inserted central catheter-associated thrombosis. J Thromb Haemost. 2017;15(10):1951-1962. doi:10.1111/jth.13794

14. Chopra V, Kaatz S, Grant P, et al. Risk of venous thromboembolism following peripherally inserted central catheter exchange: an analysis of 23,000 hospitalized patients. Am J Med. 2018;131(6):651-660. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2018.01.017

15. Chopra V, Kaatz S, Swaminathan L, et al. Variation in use and outcomes related to midline catheters: results from a multicentre pilot study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28(9):714-720. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008554

16. Cotogni P, Mussa B, Degiorgis C, De Francesco A, Pittiruti M. Comparative complication rates of 854 central venous access devices for home parenteral nutrition in cancer patients: a prospective study. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2021;45(4):768-776. doi:10.1002/jpen.1939

17. Dai C, Li J, Li QM, Guo X, Fan YY, Qin HY. Effect of tunneled and nontunneled peripherally inserted central catheter placement: a randomized controlled trial. J Vasc Access. 2020;21(4):511-519. doi:10.1177/1129729819888120

18. Diamond CE, Hennessey C, Meldau J, et al. Catheter-related venous thrombosis in hospitalized pediatric patients with inflammatory bowel disease: incidence, characteristics, and role of anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis. J Pediatr. 2018;198:53-59. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.02.039

19. Fabiani A, Santoro M, Sanson G. The catheter-to-vein ratio at the tip level as a risk factor for catheter failure: a retrospective comparative study. Heart Lung. 2023;60:39-44. doi:10.1016/j.hrtlng.2023.02.027

20. Farge D, Frere C, Connors JM, et al. 2019 international clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(10):e566-e581. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30336-5

21. Feng Y, Zheng R, Fu Y, et al. Assessing the thrombosis risk of peripherally inserted central catheters in cancer patients using Caprini risk assessment model: a prospective cohort study. Support Care Cancer. 2021;29(9):5047-5055. doi:10.1007/s00520-021-06073-4

22. Frolova AI, Shanahan MA, Tuuli MG, Simon L, Young OM. Complications of peripherally inserted central catheters in pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2022;35(9):1739-1746. doi:10.1080/14767058.2020.1769591

23. Gavin NC, Kleidon TM, Larsen E, et al. A comparison of hydrophobic polyurethane and polyurethane peripherally inserted central catheter: results from a feasibility randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2020;21(1):787. doi:10.1186/s13063-020-04699-z

24. Gnannt R, Waespe N, Temple M, et al. Increased risk of symptomatic upper-extremity venous thrombosis with multiple peripherally inserted central catheter insertions in pediatric patients. Pediatr Radiol. 2018;48(7):1013-1020. doi:10.1007/s00247-018-4096-x

25. Govindan S, Snyder A, Flanders SA, Chopra V. Peripherally inserted central catheters in the ICU: a retrospective study of adult medical patients in 52 hospitals. Crit Care Med. 2018;46(12):e1136-e1144. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000003423

26. Hansen RS, Nybo M, Hvas AM. Venous thromboembolism in pediatric cancer patients with central venous catheter—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Semin Thromb Hemost. 2021;47(8):920-930. doi:10.1055/s-0041-1729886

27. Hebal F, Sparks HT, Rychlik KL, Bone M, Tran S, Barsness KA. Pediatric arterial catheters: complications and associated risk factors. J Pediatr Surg. 2018;53(4):794-797. doi:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2017.08.057

28. Heffner AC, Androes MP. Overview of central venous access in adults. UpToDate. Updated March 19, 2020. Available at: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/overview-of-central-venous-access-in-adults

29. Houghton DE, Billett HH, Gaddh M, et al. Risk of pulmonary emboli after removal of an upper extremity central catheter associated with a deep vein thrombosis. Blood Adv. 2021;5(14):2807-2812. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2021004698

30. Imbrìaco G, Monesi A, Spencer TR. Preventing radial arterial catheter failure in critical care—factoring updated clinical strategies and techniques. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2022;41(4):101096. doi:10.1016/j.accpm.2022.101096

31. Ingram P. Risk factors for catheter related thrombosis during outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy. J Vasc Access. 2022;23(5):738-742. doi:10.1177/11297298211009369

32. Jaffray J, Witmer C, O’Brien SH, et al. Peripherally inserted central catheters lead to a high risk of venous thromboembolism in children. Blood. 2020;135(3):220-226. doi:10.1182/blood.2019002260

33. Kahale LA, Tsolakian IG, Hakoum MB, et al. Anticoagulation for people with cancer and central venous catheters. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;6(6):CD006468. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006468.pub6

34. Kang J, Sun W, Li H, Ma EL, Chen W. Validation of Michigan risk score and D-dimer to predict peripherally inserted central catheter-related thrombosis. J Vasc Access. 2022;23(5):764-769. doi:10.1177/11297298211008772

35. Kleidon TM, Horowitz J, Rickard CM, et al. Peripherally inserted central catheter thrombosis after placement via electrocardiography vs traditional methods. Am J Med. 2021;134(2):e79-e88. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2020.06.010

36. Leung A, Heal C, Perera M, Pretorius C. A systematic review of patient-related risk factors for catheter-related thrombosis. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2015;40(3):363-373. doi:10.1007/s11239-015-1175-9

37. Li A, Brandt W, Brown C, et al. Efficacy and safety of primary thromboprophylaxis for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer and a central venous catheter: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Thromb Res. 2021;208:58-65. doi:10.1016/j.thromres.2021.10.012

38. Li G, Zhang Y, Ma H, Zheng J. Arm port vs chest port: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Manag Res. 2019;11:6099-6112. doi:10.2147/CMAR.S205988

39. Li X, Wang G, Yan K, et al. The incidence, risk factors, and patterns of peripherally inserted central catheter-related venous thrombosis in cancer patients followed up by ultrasound. Cancer Manag Res. 2021;13:4329-4340. doi:10.2147/CMAR.S301458

40. Li Y, Yin Y, Wang J, Yue X, Qi X, Sun M. Analysis of predictive value of Caprini evaluation model and Autar scale on PICC-related venous thrombosis of lymphoma patients. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2020;13(9):6810-6816.

41. Lin Y, Zeng Z, Lin R, Zheng J, Liu S, Gao X. The Caprini thrombosis risk model predicts the risk of peripherally inserted central catheter-related upper extremity venous thrombosis in patients with cancer. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2021;9(5):1151-1158. doi:10.1016/j.jvsv.2020.12.075

42. Liu GD, Ma WJ, Liu HX, Tang L, Tan YH. Risk factors associated with catheter-related venous thrombosis: a meta-analysis. Public Health. 2022;205:45-54. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2022.01.018

43. Liu K, Zhou Y, Xie W, et al. Handgrip exercise reduces peripherally-inserted central catheter-related venous thrombosis in patients with solid cancers: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018;86:99-106. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.06.004

44. Liu S, Zhang F, Xie L, et al. Machine learning approaches for risk assessment of peripherally inserted central catheter-related vein thrombosis in hospitalized patients with cancer. Int J Med Inform. 2019;129:175-183. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.06.001

45. Lu H, Yang Q, Yang L, et al. The risk of venous thromboembolism associated with midline catheters compared with peripherally inserted central catheters: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nurs Open. 2022;9(3):1873-1882. doi:10.1002/nop2.935

46. Maneval RE, Clemence BJ. Risk factors associated with catheter-related upper extremity deep vein thrombosis in patients with peripherally inserted central venous catheters: a prospective observational cohort study: Part 2. J Infus Nurs. 2014;37(4):260-268. doi:10.1097/NAN.0000000000000042

47. Moss JG, Wu O, Bodenham AR, et al. Central venous access devices for the delivery of systemic anticancer therapy (CAVA): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2021;398(10298):403-415. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00766-2

48. Moureau N, McKneally E, Hofbeck D, Sharp J, Hanley B, Williams V. Integrative review: complications of peripherally inserted central catheters and midline catheters with economic analysis of potential impact of hydrophilic catheter material. Int J Nurs Health Care Res. 2022;5. doi:10.29011/2688-9501.101347

49. Neshat-Vahid S, Pierce R, Hersey D, Raffini LJ, Faustino EVS. Association of thrombophilia and catheter-associated thrombosis in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thromb Haemost. 2016;14(9):1749-1758. doi:10.1111/jth.13388

50. Ngo BKD, Grunlan MA. Protein resistant polymeric biomaterials. ACS Macro Lett. 2017;6(9):992-1000. doi:10.1021/acsmacrolett.7b00448

51. Norris AH, Shrestha NK, Allison GM, et al. 2018 Infectious Diseases Society of America clinical practice guideline for the management of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;68(1):E1-E35. doi:10.1093/cid/ciy745

52. Parienti JJ, Mongardon N, Mégarbane B, et al. Intravascular complications of central venous catheterization by insertion site. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(13):1220-1229. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1500964

53. Pelland-Marcotte M-C, Amiri N, Avila ML, Brandão LR. Low molecular weight heparin for prevention of central venous catheter-related thrombosis in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;6(6):CD005982. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005982.pub3

54. Polen E, Weintraub M, Stoffer C, Jaffe DH, Burger A, Revel-Vilk S. Post-thrombotic syndrome after central venous catheter removal in childhood cancer survivors: a prospective cohort study. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2015;62(2):285-290. doi:10.1002/pbc.25302

55. Qian H, Liu J, Xu C, Zhu W, Chen L. Predisposing factors and effect of bundle nursing in PICC-related upper extremity deep venous thrombosis in patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma undergoing chemotherapy. Am J Transl Res. 2021;13(8):9679-9686.

56. Rabelo-Silva E, Lourenço SA, Maestri RN, et al. Patterns, appropriateness and outcomes of peripherally inserted central catheter use in Brazil: a multicentre study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2022;31(9):652-661. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2021-013869

57. Saha DK, Nazneen S, Ahsan ASMA, et al. Comparison of central venous catheter related deep venous thrombosis according to insertion site in an intensive care unit of Bangladesh. J Med (Bangladesh). 2022;23(1):20-23. doi:10.3329/jom.v23i1.57932

58. Schears GJ, Ferko N, Syed I, Arpino JM, Alsbrooks K. Peripherally inserted central catheters inserted with current best practices have low deep vein thrombosis and central line-associated bloodstream infection risk compared with centrally inserted central catheters: a contemporary meta-analysis. J Vasc Access. 2021;22(1):9-25. doi:10.1177/1129729820916113

59. Sebolt J, Buchinger J, Govindan S, Zhang Q, O’Malley M, Chopra V. Patterns of vascular access device use and thrombosis outcomes in patients with COVID-19: a pilot multi-site study. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2022;53(2):257-263. doi:10.1007/s11239-021-02559-4

60. Seo H, Altshuler D, Dubrovskaya Y, et al. The safety of midline catheters for intravenous therapy at a large academic medical center. Ann Pharmacother. 2020;54(3):232-238. doi:10.1177/1060028019878794

61. Sharathkumar AA, Biss T, Kulkarni K, et al. Epidemiology and outcomes of clinically unsuspected venous thromboembolism in children: a systematic review. J Thromb Haemost. 2020;18(5):1100-1112. doi:10.1111/jth.14739

62. Simonetti G, Bersani A, Tramacere I, Lusignani M, Gaviani P, Silvani A. The role of body mass index in the development of thromboembolic events among cancer patients with PICCs: a systematic review. J Vasc Nurs. 2022;40(1):11-16. doi:10.1016/j.jvn.2021.10.001

63. Slaughter E, Kynoch K, Brodribb M, Keogh SJ. Evaluating the impact of central venous catheter materials and design on thrombosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2020;17(5):376-384. doi:10.1111/wvn.12472

64. Swartz MF, Hutchinson DJ, Stauber SD, Taillie ER, Alfieris GM, Cholette JM. Enoxaparin reduces catheter-associated venous thrombosis after infant cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2022;114(3):881-888. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2021.05.009

65. Tabatabaie O, Kasumova GG, Kent TS, et al. Upper extremity deep venous thrombosis after port insertion: what are the risk factors? Surgery. 2017;162(2):437-444. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2017.02.020

66. Tan L, Sun Y, Zhu L, et al. Risk factors of catheter-related thrombosis in early-stage breast cancer patients: a single-center retrospective study. Cancer Manag Res. 2019;11:8379-8389. doi:10.2147/CMAR.S212375

67. Taxbro K, Hammarskjöld F, Thelin B, et al. Clinical impact of peripherally inserted central catheters vs implanted port catheters in patients with cancer: an open-label, randomised, two-centre trial. Br J Anaesth. 2019;122(6):734-741. doi:10.1016/j.bja.2019.01.038

68. Thiyagarajah K, Ellingwood L, Endres K, et al. Post-thrombotic syndrome and recurrent thromboembolism in patients with upper extremity deep vein thrombosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Thromb Res. 2019;174:34-39. doi:10.1016/j.thromres.2018.12.012

69. Tippit D, Siegel E, Ochoa D, et al. Upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis in patients with breast cancer with chest versus arm central venous port catheters. Breast Cancer (Auckl). 2018;12. doi:10.1177/1178223418771909

70. Trezza C, Califano C, Iovino V, D’Ambrosio C, Grimaldi G, Pittiruti M. Incidence of fibroblastic sleeve and of catheter-related venous thrombosis in peripherally inserted central catheters: a prospective study. J Vasc Access. 2021;22(3):444-449. doi:10.1177/1129729820949411

71. Ullman A. Do antimicrobial and antithrombogenic peripherally inserted central catheter materials prevent catheter complications? An analysis of 42,562 hospitalized medical patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2022;43:427-434. doi:10.1017/ice.2021.141

72. Wang G, Li Y, Wu C, et al. The clinical features and related factors of PICC-related upper extremity asymptomatic venous thrombosis in cancer patients: a prospective study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020;99(12):e19409. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000019409

73. Wang GD, Wang HZ, Shen YF, et al. The influence of venous characteristics on peripherally inserted central catheter-related symptomatic venous thrombosis in cancer patients. Cancer Manag Res. 2020;12:11909-11920. doi:10.2147/CMAR.S282370

74. Wasan S, Esponda O, Feland N, Mathew J, Smith W. The incidence of peripherally inserted central catheter symptomatic pulmonary embolism after line removal: a retrospective analysis. J Vasc Med Surg. 2017;5(5):345. doi:10.4172/2329-6925.1000345

75. Winkler MA, Spencer TR, Siddiqi N, et al. Clinical experience with a chlorhexidine-coated PICC: a prospective, multicenter, observational study. J Vasc Access. 2021. doi:10.1177/11297298211049648

76. Yin YX, Gao W, Li XY, et al. Randomized multicenter study on long-term complications of peripherally inserted central catheters positioned by electrocardiographic technique. Phlebology. 2020;35(8):614-622. doi:10.1177/0268355520921357

77. Ying Y, Lin X-J, Chen M-J, Cao Y, Yao Y-T. Severe ischemia after radial artery catheterization: a literature review. J Vasc Access. 2022. doi:10.1177/11297298221101784

Document Version 1.0 This guideline represents a synthesis of current evidence and should be adapted to institutional policies and individual patient circumstances. Clinical judgment remains essential in applying these recommendations.