PLOS ONE Medicine&Health

Real-world optimization of tunnel lengths in tunneled peripherally inserted central catheters for cancer patients: A multi-center retrospective cohort study

by Yinyin Wu, Wei Ding, Yuying Liu, Qianhong Deng, Fengqin Tao, Hanbin Chen, Chang Chen, Meng Xiao, Bilong Feng

Standardized guidelines for optimal tunnel length in tunneled peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are lacking.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the real-world impact of tunnel length on clinical outcomes.

This retrospective cohort study included 207 cancer patients who received tunneled PICCs, categorized into a control group (tunnel length > 4 cm, n = 134) and an observation group (tunnel length ≤ 4 cm, n = 73). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to address baseline heterogeneity. Cox regression analyses were used to assess the risk of complication during a 120-day follow-up.

Compared to the control group (tunnel length > 4 cm), the observation group (tunnel length ≤ 4 cm) had a significantly higher adjusted overall complication risk (HR = 2.92, 95% CI: 1.07–7.94, P = 0.036) and unplanned catheter removal rate (4.4% vs. 0.0%, P = 0.027), confirming the safety of longer tunnels despite comparable comfort levels between groups. After PSM, Cox regression analysis showed results consistent with those from the unmatched cohort. Subgroup analyses revealed a reduced risk of complications with longer tunnels in patients with BMI ≤ 25 kg/m² (HR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.11–0.82), without hypertension (HR = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.13–1.00), without diabetes (HR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.15–0.97), and with solid tumors (HR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.11–0.85).

The results show that tunnel lengths > 4 cm reduce overall complications and prolong catheter retention, supporting the implementation of standardized protocols while advocating for personalized adjustments based on BMI, comorbidities, and cancer type.

Journal of Clinical Nursing

Distribution and characteristics of bacteria on the hand during oropharyngeal swab collection: Which handwashing points are affected?

Abstract

Aims

To identify the contaminated areas of the hand collection and analyse the distribution characteristics of bacteria in the hand after swab collection.

Design

This study used a cross-sectional design.

Methods

A cross-sectional study sampling 50 pairs of hands (sampling hand and auxiliary hand) of healthcare workers was performed. Ten samples were collected from each participant. The optimal hand hygiene rates and bacterial colony counts of the whole hand and different hand sections without hand hygiene were identified as the primary outcomes.

Results

The optimal hand hygiene rates of the sampling hand and auxiliary hand were 88.8% (222/250) and 91.6% (229/250), respectively. The lowest optimal hand hygiene rates for the sampling hand and the auxiliary hand were both on the dorsal side of the finger and the dorsum of the hand (86.0%, 86.0% vs. 90.0%, 86.0%); the optimal hand hygiene rates for both sites of the sampling hand were 86.0% (43/50), and the optimal hand hygiene rates for the auxiliary hand were 90.0% (45/50) and 86.0% (43/50). The bacteria colony counts did not differ between the sampling hands and auxiliary hand.

Conclusions

The dorsal side of the finger and dorsum of the hand were the most likely to be contaminated during oropharyngeal swab collection. Therefore, it is essential to pay extra attention to hand hygiene care of these two sites during the collection process to minimize the risk of cross-contamination.

Reporting Method

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines were adopted in this study.