Paolo Balsorano1, Gianni Virgili2, Gianluca Villa3, Mauro Pittiruti4, Stefano Romagnoli1, Angelo Raffaele De Gaudio3, Fulvio Pinelli1. 1. Division of Oncological Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy. 3. Division of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain medicine, Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy. 4. Department of Surgery, Catholic University, Rome, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Technical factors at the moment of catheter insertion might have a role in peripherally inserted central catheter-related thrombotic risk. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to define the actual rate of peripherally inserted central catheter-related symptomatic deep vein thrombosis in patients in whom catheter insertion was performed according to ultrasound guidance, appropriate catheter size choice, and proper verification of tip location. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Only prospective observational studies published in peer-reviewed journals after 2010 up to November 2018 reporting peripherally inserted central catheter-related deep vein thrombosis rate were included. All studies were of adult patients who underwent peripherally inserted central catheter insertion. Results were restricted to those studies which included in their methods ultrasound guidance for venipuncture, catheter tip location, and a catheter size selection strategy. Random-effect meta-analyses and arcsine transformation for binomial data were performed to pool deep vein thrombosis weighted frequencies. RESULTS: Of the 1441 studies identified, 15 studies involving 5420 patients and 5914 peripherally inserted central catheters fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The weighted frequency of peripherally inserted central catheter-related deep vein thrombosis was 2.4% (95% confidence interval = 1.5-3.3) and remained low in oncologic patients (2.2%, 95% confidence interval = 0.6-3.9). Thrombotic rate was higher in onco-hematologic patients (5.9%, 95% confidence interval = 1.2-10). Considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 74.9) was observed and all studies were considered at high risk of attrition bias. CONCLUSIONS: A proper technique is crucial at the moment of peripherally inserted central catheter insertion. Peripherally inserted central catheter-related deep vein thrombosis rate appears to be low when evidence-based technical factors are taken into consideration during the insertion procedure.
BACKGROUND: Technical factors at the moment of catheter insertion might have a role in peripherally inserted central catheter-related thrombotic risk. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to define the actual rate of peripherally inserted central catheter-related symptomatic deep vein thrombosis in patients in whom catheter insertion was performed according to ultrasound guidance, appropriate catheter size choice, and proper verification of tip location. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Only prospective observational studies published in peer-reviewed journals after 2010 up to November 2018 reporting peripherally inserted central catheter-related deep vein thrombosis rate were included. All studies were of adult patients who underwent peripherally inserted central catheter insertion. Results were restricted to those studies which included in their methods ultrasound guidance for venipuncture, catheter tip location, and a catheter size selection strategy. Random-effect meta-analyses and arcsine transformation for binomial data were performed to pool deep vein thrombosis weighted frequencies. RESULTS: Of the 1441 studies identified, 15 studies involving 5420 patients and 5914 peripherally inserted central catheters fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The weighted frequency of peripherally inserted central catheter-related deep vein thrombosis was 2.4% (95% confidence interval = 1.5-3.3) and remained low in oncologic patients (2.2%, 95% confidence interval = 0.6-3.9). Thrombotic rate was higher in onco-hematologic patients (5.9%, 95% confidence interval = 1.2-10). Considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 74.9) was observed and all studies were considered at high risk of attrition bias. CONCLUSIONS: A proper technique is crucial at the moment of peripherally inserted central catheter insertion. Peripherally inserted central catheter-related deep vein thrombosis rate appears to be low when evidence-based technical factors are taken into consideration during the insertion procedure.
Entities:
Keywords:
Catheterization; catheterization; central venous; peripheral; peripherally inserted central catheter line catheterization; upper extremity deep vein thrombosis; venous thrombosis
Authors: Juan Carlos Laguna; Tim Cooksley; Shin Ahn; Nikolaos Tsoukalas; Thein Hlaing Oo; Norman Brito-Dellan; Francis Esposito; Carmen Escalante; Carme Font Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-08-06 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Rajesh K Pande; Ashish Bhalla; Sheila N Myatra; Lakshmi N Yaddanpuddi; Sachin Gupta; Tapas K Sahoo; Ravi Prakash; Tarun A Sahu; Akansha Jain; Palepu Bn Gopal; Dhruva Chaudhry; Deepak Govil; Shubhal Dixit; Srinivas Samavedam Journal: Indian J Crit Care Med Date: 2020-11