A Meta-Analysis of Incidence of Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infection with Midline Catheters and Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters. (12th March 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Chen, Xin; Liang, Min
• Other Names: M.A Bhagyaveni Academic Editor.
• Is Part Of: Journal of healthcare engineering. Volume 2022(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-03-12
• Subjects: Hospital buildings -- Environmental engineering -- Periodicals; Medical technology -- Periodicals; Medical informatics -- Periodicals; 610.28
• DOI: 10.1155/2022/6383777
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2040-2295

Abstract

Abstract : In order to provide reference for the prevention and treatment of CRBSI during clinical intravenous infusion therapy, this paper investigates the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) in the treatment of midline catheters (MCs) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) by intravenous infusion. Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest are searched to collect CRBSI-related studies on MC and PICC. The retrieval time is from the database construction to August 2020. Two researchers independently searched and screened literature quality evaluation and extracted data according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and RevMan 5.3 software was used for analysis. Eleven studies are included, with a total of 33809 patients. The incidence of CRBSI in the MC group is 0.599% (43/7079), and that in the PICC group is 0.4993% (133/26630). Meta-analysis showed that the incidence of CRBSI in the MC group is higher than that in the PICC group (OR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.43–1.08, P = 0.11 ), and the difference is statistically significant when low-quality studies are excluded (OR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.39–0.93, P = 0.02 ). There is no significant difference in the incidence of CRBSI between MC group and PICC group (P > 0.05 ), American subgroup (OR = 0.52), and British subgroup (OR = 4.86), the results of the two groups are opposite, and the incidence of CRBSI between the MC group and PICC group is statistically significant. There is no significant difference in the incidence of CRBSI between the adult and other subgroups (all P > 0.05 ). There is no significant difference in the incidence of CRBSI between the MC group and the PICC group (P > 0.05 ). Overall, the inter-study stability is general, the quality is good and the medium is good, and there is no obvious publication bias. The risk of CRBSI in MC and PICC is systematically evaluated and meta-analyzed for the first time. The incidence of CRBSI in MC group is lower than that in PICC group during intravenous infusion therapy. Under the same conditions, MC patients can be given priority for intravenous infusion therapy. More high-quality and child-related studies are needed to further evaluate and explore the risk of CRBSI between MC and PICC.