Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Thesstaly, General University Hospital of Larissa, Mezourlo 41110, Larissa, Greece.
Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Thesstaly, General University Hospital of Larissa, Mezourlo 41110, Larissa, Greece.
Heart Lung. 2020 Nov-Dec;49(6):922-933. doi: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2020.07.008. Epub 2020 Jul 22.
It is unclear whether Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC) lines are associated with lower complication rates as compared to conventional Central Venous Catheters (CVCs), especially in high risk patients.
To compare Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (CLABSI) and catheter-related thrombosis rates in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and onco-hematologic patients with PICC lines and CVCs.
We systematically reviewed the PubMed, Cochrane and Google Scholar databases to identify relevant studies. Study quality was evaluated using appropriate assessment tools and the pooled odds ratio (OR) and confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were performed based on meta-analysis method, type of study and prophylaxis implementation.
Thirteen studies were included in our meta-analysis. PICC lines were associated with a significantly higher rate of thrombosis in ICU [OR (95%CI): 2.58(1.80,3.70); P<0.00001] and onco-hematologic [OR (95%CI): 2.91(2.11,4.02); P<0.00001] patients. CLABSI rates with PICC lines were not significantly different in ICU patients [OR (95%CI): 1.65(0.91,2.99); P= 0.1], but significantly lower CLABSI rates were observed in onco-hematologic patients [OR (95%CI): 0.38(0.16,0.91); P=0.03]. Sensitivity analyses verified the robustness of our results.
PICC lines are associated with higher rates of thrombotic events. However, they might be suitable for onco-hematologic patients due to lower CLABSI rates.
外周静脉置入中心静脉导管(PICC)与传统中心静脉导管(CVC)相比,并发症发生率是否更低尚不清楚,尤其是在高危患者中。
比较 PICC 与 CVC 在重症监护病房(ICU)和血液肿瘤科患者中的中心静脉相关血流感染(CLABSI)和导管相关血栓形成的发生率。
我们系统地检索了 PubMed、Cochrane 和 Google Scholar 数据库,以确定相关研究。使用适当的评估工具评估研究质量,并计算合并优势比(OR)和置信区间(CI)。根据荟萃分析方法、研究类型和预防措施的实施情况进行敏感性分析。
共有 13 项研究纳入了我们的荟萃分析。PICC 与 ICU 患者[OR(95%CI):2.58(1.80,3.70);P<0.00001]和血液肿瘤科患者[OR(95%CI):2.91(2.11,4.02);P<0.00001]血栓形成的发生率显著较高。在 ICU 患者中,PICC 与 CLABSI 发生率无显著差异[OR(95%CI):1.65(0.91,2.99);P=0.1],但在血液肿瘤科患者中,CLABSI 发生率显著较低[OR(95%CI):0.38(0.16,0.91);P=0.03]。敏感性分析验证了我们结果的稳健性。
PICC 与更高的血栓事件发生率相关。然而,由于 CLABSI 发生率较低,它们可能适合血液肿瘤科患者。