Department of Nursing, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Department of International Medical Service, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Int J Nurs Pract. 2024 Dec;30(6):e13301. doi: 10.1111/ijn.13301. Epub 2024 Sep 3.
Central venous catheters and midline catheters are commonly used as medium- to long-term intravenous infusion tools in clinical nursing. However, there is currently no reliable conclusion on whether there are differences in complications and indwelling time between these two types of catheters.
To investigate whether there are differences in the incidence of complications and indwelling time between the use of midline catheters and central venous catheters as intravenous infusion tools.
A systematic search was conducted across various databases including Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Wanfang and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. The selection of studies and assessment of their quality was carried out independently by two reviewers. Meta-analysis was conducted using the RevMan 5.3 software. Heterogeneity was evaluated, one of the pooled analyses was performed using the random-effect model, while the others used the fixed-effect model. Mean differences or odds ratios with corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated.
Ten studies (1,554 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis showed that there was a statistically significant difference in the complication rates [OR = 0.36, 95% CI (0.18, 0.70), p = 0.003], incidence of catheter-related thrombosis [OR = 0.28, 95% CI (0.11, 0.71), I = 0%,p = 0.007], catheter-related infection[OR = 0.36, 95% CI (0.16, 0.78), I = 27%, p = 0.007] and catheter blockage [OR = 0.21, 95% CI (0.09, 0.51), I = 18%, p = 0.0005] between midline catheters group and central venous catheters group. There was a statistically significant difference in the catheter indwelling time between the two groups [MD = 0.9, 95% CI (0.33, 1.46), I = 0%, p = 0.002]. There was no significant difference in other complications such as phlebitis, catheter dislodgement and leakage between the two groups.
Midline catheter was superior to central venous catheter in terms of the overall complication rates and incidence of catheter-related thrombosis, catheter blockage, catheter-related infection and indwelling time.
中心静脉导管和中线导管常用于临床护理中的中至长期静脉输液。然而,目前尚无可靠结论表明这两种导管在并发症和留置时间方面是否存在差异。
探讨中线导管与中心静脉导管作为静脉输液工具在并发症发生率和留置时间方面是否存在差异。
系统检索了 Web of Science、PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library、CINAHL、万方和中国知网等数据库,由两位评审员独立进行研究选择和质量评估。使用 RevMan 5.3 软件进行荟萃分析。评估异质性,采用随机效应模型进行一项汇总分析,其他分析采用固定效应模型。计算均值差异或比值比及其对应的 95%置信区间。
纳入了 10 项研究(1554 名参与者)。荟萃分析显示,并发症发生率[比值比(OR)=0.36,95%置信区间(CI)(0.18,0.70),p=0.003]、导管相关性血栓形成[OR=0.28,95%CI(0.11,0.71),I²=0%,p=0.007]、导管相关性感染[OR=0.36,95%CI(0.16,0.78),I²=27%,p=0.007]和导管堵塞[OR=0.21,95%CI(0.09,0.51),I²=18%,p=0.0005]方面,中线导管组与中心静脉导管组存在统计学差异。两组导管留置时间[MD=0.9,95%CI(0.33,1.46),I²=0%,p=0.002]存在统计学差异。两组在静脉炎、导管脱出和渗漏等其他并发症方面无显著差异。
中线导管在总体并发症发生率和导管相关性血栓形成、导管堵塞、导管相关性感染以及留置时间方面优于中心静脉导管。