Comparison of early complications of midline catheter and peripherally inserted central catheter in intravenous infusion: a Meta-analysis / 中国实用护理杂志

ABSTRACT

Objective:To analyze and compare the incidence of catheter related complications between midline catheter (MC) and peripherally inserted central catheter(PICC) within 30 days. Provide guidance and basis for medical staff to choose appropriate intravenous infusion tools to prevent catheter related complications.Methods:The randomized controlled trials, clinical controlled trials and cohort studies about MC and PICC related complications were searched in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, EBSCO, Ovid, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang database and CBM, which were published at home and abroad up to December 31, 2021. After screening the literatures, extracting data and quality evaluation according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, RevMan5.4 software was used for statistical analysis.Results:A total of ten articles were included in this study, including two randomized controlled trials, a clinical controlled trials, a prospective cohort study and six retrospective cohort studies, with 12 765 cases in MC group and 33 783 cases in PICC group. The results of Meta-analysis showed that the incidences of catheter-related bloodstream infection and catheter displacement in MC group were significantly lower than those in PICC group ( RR=0.37, 95% CI 0.18-0.76, P<0.05; RR=0.49, 95% CI 0.25-0.97, P<0.05). Conclusions:Compared with PICC in the early stage of intravenous infusion, MC is safer and more effective. When continuous infusion of isotonic or near-isotonic medications is required, and there is no need for continuous vesicant medications, MC can be preferred. However, more large-sample and high-quality studies are still needed to provide a basis for the popularization of MC in China.