Dataset Information

Prevalence of complications associated with the use of a peripherally inserted central catheter in newborns: A systematic review protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The improper handling of a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) in newborns (NBs) may result in mechanical and infectious complications.

Aim

The aim of this systematic review (SR) is to estimate the prevalence of complications associated with the use of PICC in NBs.

Methods

We will utilize PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Google Scholar for the databases search. There will be no restrictions on the search for languages, and observational studies will be selected wherein the prevalence rate of complications associated with the use of PICC in NBs has been presented or can be calculated. The systematic review will follow the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Two reviewers will independently select studies and assess their eligibility using predefined criteria. Using standardized forms, two other reviewers will independently extract data from each included study, and the random-effects pooled prevalence will be calculated in the meta-analysis with the respective 95% confidence intervals. The methodological quality of the studies will be assessed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Review Manager V.5.3.5 will be used for the qualitative and quantitative synthesis. A protocol was developed and published on PROSPERO (Registration number CRD42020211983).

Expected results

This SR will show the prevalence of complications caused by the inadequate management of PICC in NBs, which is information considered important for clinical practice improvement.

SUBMITTER: Sarmento Diniz ER

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8301638 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportancePeripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are frequently used to deliver intravenous antimicrobial therapy. However, inappropriate PICC use may lead to patient harm.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether infectious disease physician approval prior to PICC placement for intravenous antimicrobials is associated with more appropriate device use and fewer complications.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study of 21 653 PICCs placed for a primary indication of intravenous antimicrobial therapy between January 1, 2015, and July 26, 2019, was conducted in 42 hospitals participating in a quality collaborative across Michigan among hospitalized medical patients.Main outcomes and measuresAppropriateness of PICCs was defined according to the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters as a composite measure of (1) single-lumen catheter use, (2) avoiding use of PICCs for 5 days or less, and (3) avoiding use of PICCs for patients with chronic kidney disease (defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate <45 mL/min/1.73 m2). Complications related to PICCs included catheter occlusion, deep vein thrombosis, and central line-associated bloodstream infection. The association between infectious disease physician approval, device appropriateness, and catheter complications was assessed using multivariable models, adjusted for patient comorbidities and hospital clustering. Results were expressed as odds ratios with 95% CIs.ResultsA total of 21 653 PICCs were placed for intravenous antimicrobials (11 960 PICCs were placed in men [55.2%]; median age, 64.5 years [interquartile range, 53.4-75.4 years]); 10 238 PICCs (47.3%) were approved by an infectious disease physician prior to placement. Compared with PICCs with no documented approval, PICCs with approval by an infectious disease physician were more likely to be appropriately used (72.7% [7446 of 10 238] appropriate with approval vs 45.4% [5180 of 11 415] appropriate without approval; odds ratio, 3.53; 95% CI, 3.29-3.79; P < .001). Furthermore, approval was associated with lower odds of a PICC-related complication (6.5% [665 of 10 238] with approval vs 11.3% [1292 of 11 415] without approval; odds ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.50-0.61).Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study suggests that, when PICCs were placed for intravenous antimicrobial therapy, infectious disease physician approval of PICC insertion was associated with more appropriate device use and fewer complications. Policies aimed at ensuring infectious disease physician approval prior to PICC placement for antimicrobials may improve patient safety.

Project description:Abstract Background Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and midlines are commonly used devices for reliable vascular access. Infection and thrombosis are the main adverse effects of these catheters. We aimed to evaluate the relative risk of complications from midlines and PICCs. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. The primary outcomes were catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) and thrombosis. Secondary outcomes evaluated included mortality, failure to complete therapy, catheter occlusion, phlebitis, and catheter fracture. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Results Of 8368 citations identified, 20 studies met the eligibility criteria, including 1 RCT and 19 observational studies. Midline use was associated with fewer patients with CRBSI compared with PICCs (odds ratio [OR], 0.24; 95% CI, 0.15–0.38). This association was not observed when we evaluated risk per catheter. No significant association was found between catheters when evaluating risk of localized thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. A subgroup analysis based on location of thrombosis showed higher rates of superficial venous thrombosis in patients using midlines (OR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.48–3.57). We did not identify any significant difference between midlines and PICCs for the secondary outcomes. Conclusions Our findings suggest that patients who use midlines might experience fewer CRBSIs than those who use PICCs. However, the use of midline catheters was associated with greater risk of superficial vein thrombosis. These findings can help guide future cost-benefit analyses and direct comparative RCTs to further characterize the efficacy and risks of PICCs vs midline catheters. PICC and midlines are commonly used devices in hospitalized patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the complications of the use of midline catheter vs. PICC, focusing on catheter-related bloodstream infection and thrombosi