Open AccessThe risk of venous thromboembolism associated with midline catheters compared with peripherally inserted central catheters: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Author(s) -
Lu Huapeng,
Yang Qinling,
Yang Lili,
Qu Kai,
Tian Boyan,
Xiao Qigui,
Xin Xia,
Lv Yi,
Zheng Xuemei
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
nursing open
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.55
H-Index - 12
ISSN - 2054-1058
DOI - 10.1002/nop2.935
Subject(s) - medicine , meta analysis , checklist , cochrane library , venous thromboembolism , subgroup analysis , medline , relative risk , systematic review , web of science , surgery , confidence interval , thrombosis , psychology , political science , law , cognitive psychology
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.