Annals of vascular surgery · 2026
Comparison of Complication Rates of Midline Catheter versus Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter: An Update Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tian Yu, Wang Ruizhi, Yao Xuesong, Song Peng
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In this meta-analysis, we compared the clinical outcomes and complications of using midline catheters (MCs) versus peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) among patients undergoing intravenous therapy (IVT). Our goal was to evaluate the relative risk of complications from MCs and PICCs.
METHODS: We performed an extensive review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational investigations. Literature screening was carried out using the electronic databases Embase, Ovid, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Google Scholar from the day of database establishment till February 26, 2025. Eligible studies included those that compared complication rates among patients using either PICCs or MCs for IVT. Our primary end point was major complications, including catheter-related vein thrombosis (CRVT) and catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI). Among the secondary end points were phlebitis, pain, catheter dislodgement, catheter infiltration, and total complications. All data analyses were conducted using Stata (version 14).
RESULTS: The initial screening produced 8,410 articles. Among them, only 11 studies, including 3 RCTs and 8 observational investigations, met our strict inclusion criteria. Based on our meta-analysis, MCs were associated with a significantly higher incidence of CRVT compared to PICCs (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-3.23; P = 0.016; I2= 13.5%), but with a significantly lower incidence of CRBSI (IRR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.37-0.91; P = 0.018; I2= 0%). Among secondary outcomes, MCs showed a markedly increased risk of infiltration (IRR, 8.41; 95% CI, 2.53-27.93; P = 0.001; I2= 0%) and total complications (IRR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.29-5.02; P = 0.007; I2= 78.8%). No statistically significant differences were observed between MCs and PICCs in terms of phlebitis (IRR, 2.11; 95% CI, 0.78-5.68; P = 0.14; I2= 0%), dislodgement (IRR, 2.33; 95% CI, 0.58-9.33; P = 0.23; I2= 63.5%), or pain (IRR, 1.76; 95% CI, 0.49-6.38; P = 0.39; I2= 32.7%) CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that MCs increased the risk of CRVT and reduced the risk of CRBSI relative to PICCs. These findings can help guide future analyses and direct comparative RCTs to further characterize the efficacy and risks of PICCs versus MCs.
METHODS: We performed an extensive review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational investigations. Literature screening was carried out using the electronic databases Embase, Ovid, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Google Scholar from the day of database establishment till February 26, 2025. Eligible studies included those that compared complication rates among patients using either PICCs or MCs for IVT. Our primary end point was major complications, including catheter-related vein thrombosis (CRVT) and catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI). Among the secondary end points were phlebitis, pain, catheter dislodgement, catheter infiltration, and total complications. All data analyses were conducted using Stata (version 14).
RESULTS: The initial screening produced 8,410 articles. Among them, only 11 studies, including 3 RCTs and 8 observational investigations, met our strict inclusion criteria. Based on our meta-analysis, MCs were associated with a significantly higher incidence of CRVT compared to PICCs (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-3.23; P = 0.016; I2= 13.5%), but with a significantly lower incidence of CRBSI (IRR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.37-0.91; P = 0.018; I2= 0%). Among secondary outcomes, MCs showed a markedly increased risk of infiltration (IRR, 8.41; 95% CI, 2.53-27.93; P = 0.001; I2= 0%) and total complications (IRR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.29-5.02; P = 0.007; I2= 78.8%). No statistically significant differences were observed between MCs and PICCs in terms of phlebitis (IRR, 2.11; 95% CI, 0.78-5.68; P = 0.14; I2= 0%), dislodgement (IRR, 2.33; 95% CI, 0.58-9.33; P = 0.23; I2= 63.5%), or pain (IRR, 1.76; 95% CI, 0.49-6.38; P = 0.39; I2= 32.7%) CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that MCs increased the risk of CRVT and reduced the risk of CRBSI relative to PICCs. These findings can help guide future analyses and direct comparative RCTs to further characterize the efficacy and risks of PICCs versus MCs.