Abstract
Over an eight-month period, 177 patients were admitted to a study to determine whether there was any significant difference between the peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) in relation to the central venous catheter (CVC) and the peripheral venous access device in respect of the length of stay, incidence of phlebitis and the need for removal for suspected sepsis and infection. The results demonstrated no significant difference in terms of gender, age, or severity of illness. The PICC line had a significally higher length of stay and less incidence of phlebitis. In conclusion, PICC placement does have a place in the critical care setting. It should not be expected to replace existing methods of vascular access but used to provide a safe and effective alternative.