The risk of venous thromboembolism associated with midline catheters compared with peripherally inserted central catheters: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Abstract Background Both midline catheters (MCs) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) can cause venous thromboembolism (VTE), but the prevalence associated with each is controversial. Objective To compare the risk of VTE between MCs and PICCs with a systematic review and meta‐analysis...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2022-05-01
|
| Series: | Nursing Open |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.935 |
| _version_ | 1818195310096154624 |
|---|---|
| author | Huapeng Lu Qinling Yang Lili Yang Kai Qu Boyan Tian Qigui Xiao Xia Xin Yi Lv Xuemei Zheng |
| author_facet | Huapeng Lu Qinling Yang Lili Yang Kai Qu Boyan Tian Qigui Xiao Xia Xin Yi Lv Xuemei Zheng |
| author_sort | Huapeng Lu |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Both midline catheters (MCs) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) can cause venous thromboembolism (VTE), but the prevalence associated with each is controversial. Objective To compare the risk of VTE between MCs and PICCs with a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Methods The Web of Science Core Collection, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, the Cochrane Library and ProQuest were searched from inception to January 2020. All studies comparing the risk of VTE between MCs and PICCs were included. Selected studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Downs and Black checklist. Two authors independently assessed the literature and extracted the data. Any different opinion was resolved through third‐party consensus. Meta‐analyses were conducted to generate estimates of VTE risk in patients with MCs versus PICCs, and publication bias was evaluated with RevMan 5.3. Results A total of 86 studies were identified. Twelve studies were recruited, involving 40,871 patients. The prevalence of VTE with MCs and PICCs was 3.97% (310/7806) and 2.29% (758/33065), respectively. Meta‐analysis showed that the prevalence of VTE with MCs was higher than that with PICCs (RR=1.53, 95% CI: 1.33–1.76, p < .00001). Subgroup analyses by age showed that the prevalence of VTE with MCs was higher than that with PICCs in the adult group (RR=1.75, 95% CI: 1.38–2.22, p < .00001), and higher than that with PICCs in the other subgroups (RR=1.42, 95% CI: 1.19–1.69, p = .0001). Subgroup analyses by nation showed that the prevalence of VTE with MCs was higher than that with PICCs (RR=1.50, 95% CI: 1.30–1.73, p < .00001) in US subgroup and higher than that with PICCs (RR=2.87, 95% CI: 1.24–6.65, p = .01) in the other nations. The sensitivity analysis shows that the results from this meta‐analysis are robust and all studies have no significant publication bias. Conclusions This study provides the first systematic assessment of the risk of VTE between MCs and PICCs. MCs are associated with a higher risk of VTE than PICCs in all patients and adults. The findings of this study have several important implications for future practice. However, the risk of VTE between MCs and PICCs in children is unclear. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-12T01:16:09Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-10d4287271ec43cab8f4c26db5d5b6fb |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2054-1058 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-12T01:16:09Z |
| publishDate | 2022-05-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Nursing Open |
| spelling | doaj.art-10d4287271ec43cab8f4c26db5d5b6fb2022-12-22T00:43:21ZengWileyNursing Open2054-10582022-05-01931873188210.1002/nop2.935The risk of venous thromboembolism associated with midline catheters compared with peripherally inserted central catheters: A systematic review and meta‐analysisHuapeng Lu0Qinling Yang1Lili Yang2Kai Qu3Boyan Tian4Qigui Xiao5Xia Xin6Yi Lv7Xuemei Zheng8Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery The First Affiliated Hospital Xi’an Jiaotong University Xi’an ChinaDepartment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery The First Affiliated Hospital Xi’an Jiaotong University Xi’an ChinaDepartment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery The First Affiliated Hospital Xi’an Jiaotong University Xi’an ChinaDepartment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery The First Affiliated Hospital Xi’an Jiaotong University Xi’an ChinaDepartment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery The First Affiliated Hospital Xi’an Jiaotong University Xi’an ChinaDepartment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery The First Affiliated Hospital Xi’an Jiaotong University Xi’an ChinaDepartment of Nursing The First Affiliated Hospital Xi’an Jiaotong University Xi’an ChinaDepartment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery The First Affiliated Hospital Xi’an Jiaotong University Xi’an ChinaDepartment of Nursing The First Affiliated Hospital Xi’an Jiaotong University Xi’an ChinaAbstract Background Both midline catheters (MCs) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) can cause venous thromboembolism (VTE), but the prevalence associated with each is controversial. Objective To compare the risk of VTE between MCs and PICCs with a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Methods The Web of Science Core Collection, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, the Cochrane Library and ProQuest were searched from inception to January 2020. All studies comparing the risk of VTE between MCs and PICCs were included. Selected studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Downs and Black checklist. Two authors independently assessed the literature and extracted the data. Any different opinion was resolved through third‐party consensus. Meta‐analyses were conducted to generate estimates of VTE risk in patients with MCs versus PICCs, and publication bias was evaluated with RevMan 5.3. Results A total of 86 studies were identified. Twelve studies were recruited, involving 40,871 patients. The prevalence of VTE with MCs and PICCs was 3.97% (310/7806) and 2.29% (758/33065), respectively. Meta‐analysis showed that the prevalence of VTE with MCs was higher than that with PICCs (RR=1.53, 95% CI: 1.33–1.76, p < .00001). Subgroup analyses by age showed that the prevalence of VTE with MCs was higher than that with PICCs in the adult group (RR=1.75, 95% CI: 1.38–2.22, p < .00001), and higher than that with PICCs in the other subgroups (RR=1.42, 95% CI: 1.19–1.69, p = .0001). Subgroup analyses by nation showed that the prevalence of VTE with MCs was higher than that with PICCs (RR=1.50, 95% CI: 1.30–1.73, p < .00001) in US subgroup and higher than that with PICCs (RR=2.87, 95% CI: 1.24–6.65, p = .01) in the other nations. The sensitivity analysis shows that the results from this meta‐analysis are robust and all studies have no significant publication bias. Conclusions This study provides the first systematic assessment of the risk of VTE between MCs and PICCs. MCs are associated with a higher risk of VTE than PICCs in all patients and adults. The findings of this study have several important implications for future practice. However, the risk of VTE between MCs and PICCs in children is unclear.https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.935complicationintravenous therapymidline catheterperipherally inserted central cathetersystematic reviewvenous thromboembolism |
| spellingShingle | Huapeng Lu Qinling Yang Lili Yang Kai Qu Boyan Tian Qigui Xiao Xia Xin Yi Lv Xuemei Zheng The risk of venous thromboembolism associated with midline catheters compared with peripherally inserted central catheters: A systematic review and meta‐analysis Nursing Open complication intravenous therapy midline catheter peripherally inserted central catheter systematic review venous thromboembolism |
| title | The risk of venous thromboembolism associated with midline catheters compared with peripherally inserted central catheters: A systematic review and meta‐analysis |
| title_full | The risk of venous thromboembolism associated with midline catheters compared with peripherally inserted central catheters: A systematic review and meta‐analysis |
| title_fullStr | The risk of venous thromboembolism associated with midline catheters compared with peripherally inserted central catheters: A systematic review and meta‐analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | The risk of venous thromboembolism associated with midline catheters compared with peripherally inserted central catheters: A systematic review and meta‐analysis |
| title_short | The risk of venous thromboembolism associated with midline catheters compared with peripherally inserted central catheters: A systematic review and meta‐analysis |
| title_sort | risk of venous thromboembolism associated with midline catheters compared with peripherally inserted central catheters a systematic review and meta analysis |
| topic | complication intravenous therapy midline catheter peripherally inserted central catheter systematic review venous thromboembolism |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.935 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT huapenglu theriskofvenousthromboembolismassociatedwithmidlinecatheterscomparedwithperipherallyinsertedcentralcathetersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT qinlingyang theriskofvenousthromboembolismassociatedwithmidlinecatheterscomparedwithperipherallyinsertedcentralcathetersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT liliyang theriskofvenousthromboembolismassociatedwithmidlinecatheterscomparedwithperipherallyinsertedcentralcathetersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT kaiqu theriskofvenousthromboembolismassociatedwithmidlinecatheterscomparedwithperipherallyinsertedcentralcathetersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT boyantian theriskofvenousthromboembolismassociatedwithmidlinecatheterscomparedwithperipherallyinsertedcentralcathetersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT qiguixiao theriskofvenousthromboembolismassociatedwithmidlinecatheterscomparedwithperipherallyinsertedcentralcathetersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT xiaxin theriskofvenousthromboembolismassociatedwithmidlinecatheterscomparedwithperipherallyinsertedcentralcathetersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT yilv theriskofvenousthromboembolismassociatedwithmidlinecatheterscomparedwithperipherallyinsertedcentralcathetersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT xuemeizheng theriskofvenousthromboembolismassociatedwithmidlinecatheterscomparedwithperipherallyinsertedcentralcathetersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT huapenglu riskofvenousthromboembolismassociatedwithmidlinecatheterscomparedwithperipherallyinsertedcentralcathetersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT qinlingyang riskofvenousthromboembolismassociatedwithmidlinecatheterscomparedwithperipherallyinsertedcentralcathetersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT liliyang riskofvenousthromboembolismassociatedwithmidlinecatheterscomparedwithperipherallyinsertedcentralcathetersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT kaiqu riskofvenousthromboembolismassociatedwithmidlinecatheterscomparedwithperipherallyinsertedcentralcathetersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT boyantian riskofvenousthromboembolismassociatedwithmidlinecatheterscomparedwithperipherallyinsertedcentralcathetersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT qiguixiao riskofvenousthromboembolismassociatedwithmidlinecatheterscomparedwithperipherallyinsertedcentralcathetersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT xiaxin riskofvenousthromboembolismassociatedwithmidlinecatheterscomparedwithperipherallyinsertedcentralcathetersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT yilv riskofvenousthromboembolismassociatedwithmidlinecatheterscomparedwithperipherallyinsertedcentralcathetersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT xuemeizheng riskofvenousthromboembolismassociatedwithmidlinecatheterscomparedwithperipherallyinsertedcentralcathetersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |