I am a second semester student and have a question. My med-surf clinical instructor stated that removing a PICC line is a sterile procedure. I questioned (in a nice way) why that is the case. She really couldn't answer. I get why inserting them and site care would be, but I don't get why the d/c would need to be. Everything I have found about it just says it is with no reason given as to why. I have no problem doing it using sterile technique, I just am curious why it needs to be.
Any of you more experienced and educated nurses know why the removal would be sterile?
I would avoid using petrolatum directly on or in the puncture site, this presents the potential for the petrolatum to enter the vessel, and there has been at least one documented case of death due to petrolatum emboli that entered through a CVC tract. What's safer, and more effective, is to use a gauze either pre-impregnated with petrolatum or to add the petrolatum to gauze and make sure you work it in.
The benefit of using air embolism precautions when removing a PICC isn't established either through evidence or even just theory, once the line is removed it's no different than a peripheral site. I would say it doesn't hurt, so why not, but there is certainly an aspiration risk that is not really outweighed by any potential benefit.
I found the case you are referring to. It was in 1990 and was during a transjugular insertion, not for a removal after which hemostasis has been obtained. Plus, only the abstract is available, so unless you are fluent in German, actually reading the article would be impossible.
dudette10, MSN, RN
3,530 Posts
I found the case you are referring to. It was in 1990 and was during a transjugular insertion, not for a removal after which hemostasis has been obtained. Plus, only the abstract is available, so unless you are fluent in German, actually reading the article would be impossible.
But, like you said, what does it hurt?