Suppr超能文献

成人接受静脉治疗时中线与外周置入中心导管的安全性和有效性:一项随机临床试验。

Safety and Efficacy of Midline vs Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters Among Adults Receiving IV Therapy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

机构信息

Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.

Department of Gastroenterology, Centre for Nutrition and Intestinal Failure, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.

出版信息

JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Feb 5;7(2):e2355716. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.55716.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE

Midline catheters (MCs) are widely used, but safety and efficacy compared with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) has not been adequately evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and efficacy of MCs with PICCs among adult patients with an anticipated intravenous therapy lasting from 5 to 28 days.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This parallel, 2-group, open-label, randomized clinical trial (RCT) was conducted in Denmark from October 2018 to February 2022 at a single academic tertiary care center. Adult inpatients and outpatients were consecutively randomized.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either the MC group or the PICC control group.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), analyzed using the Fisher exact test. Secondary outcomes were symptomatic catheter-related thrombosis and catheter failure, including mechanical cause, phlebitis, infiltration, pain in relation to drug or fluid administration, and leaking from the puncture site. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated to assess between-group failure rates over device dwell time using Poisson regression. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 304 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.6 [13.5] years; 130 [42.8%] female) were included in the analysis, and 152 patients were allocated to each catheter group. The incidence of CRBSI was low, with 0 in the MC group and 1 in the PICC control group (P > .99). The MC group had a higher catheter-related complication rate (20 [13.2%] vs 11 [7.2%]), and an IRR of 2.37 (95% CI, 1.12-5.02; P = .02) for complications compared with the PICC control group. In a post hoc analysis stratified by catheter dwell time, no significant difference in complication rate (IRR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.50-2.68; P = .73) was found between the 2 groups for catheters used less than 16 days.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this RCT with patients who received medium- to long-term intravenous therapy, the incidence of CRBSI was low, with no difference between MCs and PICCs. The use of MCs resulted in a higher incidence of catheter-related complications compared with use of PICCs. This finding should be balanced in the decision of type of catheter used at the individual patient level.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04140916.

摘要

重要性

中线导管(MCs)被广泛应用,但与外周静脉置入中心导管(PICCs)相比,其安全性和疗效尚未得到充分评估。

目的

比较预计静脉治疗时间为 5 至 28 天的成年患者使用 MCs 与 PICCs 的安全性和疗效。

设计、设置和参与者:这是一项在丹麦的单中心、单盲、平行、2 组开放性随机临床试验(RCT),于 2018 年 10 月至 2022 年 2 月在一家学术性三级护理中心进行。连续纳入成年住院患者和门诊患者。

干预

患者按 1:1 的比例随机分配到 MC 组或 PICC 对照组。

主要结局和测量指标

主要结局是导管相关性血流感染(CRBSI),采用 Fisher 确切检验进行分析。次要结局是有症状的导管相关性血栓形成和导管故障,包括机械原因、静脉炎、渗漏、与药物或液体输注相关的疼痛以及穿刺部位渗漏。采用泊松回归计算两组在导管留置时间内的装置失效率的发生率比(IRR)。采用意向治疗分析。

结果

共纳入 304 例患者(平均[标准差]年龄 64.6[13.5]岁;130 例[42.8%]为女性),每组 152 例患者。CRBSI 的发生率较低,MC 组为 0 例,PICC 对照组为 1 例(P > .99)。MC 组的导管相关性并发症发生率较高(20 例[13.2%] vs 11 例[7.2%]),与 PICC 对照组相比,并发症的 IRR 为 2.37(95%CI,1.12-5.02;P = .02)。在按导管留置时间分层的事后分析中,对于使用时间少于 16 天的导管,两组之间的并发症发生率(IRR,1.16;95%CI,0.50-2.68;P = .73)无显著差异。

结论和相关性

在这项纳入接受中至长期静脉治疗的患者的 RCT 中,CRBSI 的发生率较低,MCs 与 PICCs 之间无差异。与 PICCs 相比,使用 MCs 会导致更高的导管相关性并发症发生率。这一发现应在个体患者层面上决定使用哪种导管类型时加以平衡。

试验注册

ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符:NCT04140916。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ba1d/10865154/c84c7077b3ea/jamanetwopen-e2355716-g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验