Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China.
Department of Nursing, The First Affiliated Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China.
Int J Nurs Pract. 2022 Apr;28(2):e12976. doi: 10.1111/ijn.12976. Epub 2021 Jun 1.
To compare the risk of phlebitis between midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters in infusion therapy with a meta-analysis.
This was a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, CNKI, WanFang, VIP and SinoMed were searched from inception to May 2020.
All studies comparing the risk of phlebitis between midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters were included. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, two authors independently assessed the literature and extracted the data. Meta-analyses were conducted to generate estimates of phlebitis risk in patients with midline catheters verse peripherally inserted central catheters, and publication bias was evaluated with RevMan 5.3.
A total of seven studies were collected, involving 1377 participants. The incidence of phlebitis with midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters was 1.52% and 3.41%. Meta-analysis showed that the incidence of phlebitis has no significant difference between midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters. The sensitivity analysis shows that the results from this meta-analysis are fair in overall studies. All studies have no significant publication bias.
This study provides the first systematic assessment of the risk of phlebitis between midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters. The incidence of phlebitis has no significant difference between them. There are many factors to consider when choosing vascular access devices.
通过 meta 分析比较静脉输液治疗中中线导管与外周静脉置入中心导管所致静脉炎的风险。
系统文献回顾和 meta 分析。
从建库到 2020 年 5 月，检索了 Web of Science、PubMed、Scopus、Embase、Cochrane 图书馆、ProQuest、CNKI、万方、VIP 和 SinoMed 等数据库。
纳入比较中线导管与外周静脉置入中心导管所致静脉炎风险的研究。按照纳入和排除标准，由 2 位作者独立评估文献并提取数据。采用 meta 分析比较中线导管与外周静脉置入中心导管患者静脉炎风险的估计值，并采用 RevMan 5.3 评价发表偏倚。
共纳入 7 项研究，涉及 1377 例患者。中线导管和外周静脉置入中心导管所致静脉炎的发生率分别为 1.52%和 3.41%。meta 分析显示，中线导管与外周静脉置入中心导管所致静脉炎的发生率无显著差异。敏感性分析显示，该 meta 分析的结果在总体研究中是公平的。所有研究均无显著发表偏倚。
本研究首次系统评估了中线导管与外周静脉置入中心导管所致静脉炎的风险。它们所致静脉炎的发生率无显著差异。在选择血管通路装置时需要考虑许多因素。
