A meta‐analysis of the comparison of phlebitis between midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters in infusion therapy. Issue 2 (1st June 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lu, Huapeng; Yang, Qinling; Tian, Boyan; Lyu, Yi; Zheng, Xuemei; Xin, Xia
• Is Part Of: International journal of nursing practice. Volume 28:Issue 2(2022)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2021-06-01
• Subjects: infusion therapy -- meta‐analysis -- midline catheter -- nursing -- peripherally inserted central catheter -- phlebitis; Nursing -- Periodicals; Nursing -- Practice -- Periodicals; 610.73092
• DOI: 10.1111/ijn.12976
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1322-7114

Abstract

Abstract: Aims: To compare the risk of phlebitis between midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters in infusion therapy with a meta‐analysis. Design: This was a systematic literature review and meta‐analysis. Data Sources: Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, CNKI, WanFang, VIP and SinoMed were searched from inception to May 2020. Review Methods: All studies comparing the risk of phlebitis between midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters were included. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, two authors independently assessed the literature and extracted the data. Meta‐analyses were conducted to generate estimates of phlebitis risk in patients with midline catheters verse peripherally inserted central catheters, and publication bias was evaluated with RevMan 5.3. Results: A total of seven studies were collected, involving 1377 participants. The incidence of phlebitis with midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters was 1.52% and 3.41%. Meta‐analysis showed that the incidence of phlebitis has no significant difference between midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters. The sensitivity analysis shows that the results from this meta‐analysis are fair in overall studies. All studies have no significant publication bias. Conclusion: This study provides the first systematic assessment of the risk of phlebitis between midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters. The incidence of phlebitis has no significant difference between them. There are many factors to consider when choosing vascular access devices. Summary statement: What is already known about this topic? Infusion phlebitis is an inflammatory response of the inner layer of veins caused by infusion, which is related to vascular access devices, transparent film dressing, location of catheter placement, dwelling time, liquid of drugs and methods of infusion therapy. Many studies have reported that the incidence of phlebitis caused by midline catheter is 2.2%–13.3% and that of peripherally inserted central catheter is 0.6%–9.7%. The incidence of phlebitis in midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters is controversial. What this paper adds? This first systematic assessment of the risk of phlebitis between midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters. The incidence of phlebitis was not significantly different between midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters. The implications of this paper: As the sensitivity of this meta‐analysis is fair rather than robust, study findings need to be interpreted cautiously, and more high‐quality studies are needed. For the selection of appropriate vascular access devices for intravenous infusion therapy, more factors need to be considered.