We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Rate of Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections Between Tunneled Central Venous Catheters Versus Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters in Adult Home Parenteral Nutrition: A Meta-analysis.
JPEN. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition 2019 January
BACKGROUND: Tunneled central venous catheters (TCVCs) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) are often used for the provision of home parenteral nutrition (HPN). There is no formal comparison being made to study the rate of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) between TCVCs and PICC in HPN to recommend the use of 1 over the other.
METHODS: An online MEDLINE, PubMed, and Scopus search was conducted. Studies reporting the rate of CRBSI in HPN patients were included. DerSimonian and Laird random effects meta-analyses were used to analyze comparative studies, whereas Begg and Pilote's random effects meta-analysis was used to pool and analyze single-arm studies.
RESULTS: Seventeen studies (12 single-arm studies and 5 comparative studies) were included for analysis. Meta-analysis of comparative studies showed that PICC use was associated with a significantly lower rate of CRBSI (relative risk (RR) 0.40, 95% CI 0.19-0.83), whereas meta-analysis of single-arm studies revealed that the relative risk for CRBSI was not statistically significantly different from unity.
CONCLUSION: TCVC is more commonly used in long-term HPN. Our analysis of comparative studies showed a lower rate of CRBSI in HPN patients using PICC compared with TCVC; however, analysis of single-arm studies showed that the rate of CRBSI was comparable in PICC and TCVC use. The decision to which type of catheter is most suited for HPN patients should hence be based on the duration of treatment, level of care, patients' dexterity, as well patients' underlying comorbidities that may potentially contribute to other catheter-related complications.
METHODS: An online MEDLINE, PubMed, and Scopus search was conducted. Studies reporting the rate of CRBSI in HPN patients were included. DerSimonian and Laird random effects meta-analyses were used to analyze comparative studies, whereas Begg and Pilote's random effects meta-analysis was used to pool and analyze single-arm studies.
RESULTS: Seventeen studies (12 single-arm studies and 5 comparative studies) were included for analysis. Meta-analysis of comparative studies showed that PICC use was associated with a significantly lower rate of CRBSI (relative risk (RR) 0.40, 95% CI 0.19-0.83), whereas meta-analysis of single-arm studies revealed that the relative risk for CRBSI was not statistically significantly different from unity.
CONCLUSION: TCVC is more commonly used in long-term HPN. Our analysis of comparative studies showed a lower rate of CRBSI in HPN patients using PICC compared with TCVC; however, analysis of single-arm studies showed that the rate of CRBSI was comparable in PICC and TCVC use. The decision to which type of catheter is most suited for HPN patients should hence be based on the duration of treatment, level of care, patients' dexterity, as well patients' underlying comorbidities that may potentially contribute to other catheter-related complications.
Full text links
Trending Papers
A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure.Heart International 2023
Potential Mechanisms of the Protective Effects of the Cardiometabolic Drugs Type-2 Sodium-Glucose Transporter Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Heart Failure.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 Februrary 21
The Effect of Albumin Administration in Critically Ill Patients: A Retrospective Single-Center Analysis.Critical Care Medicine 2024 Februrary 8
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app