ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Since the first description of the central venous catheter (CVC) in 1952, it has been used for the rapid administration of drugs, chemotherapy, as a route for nutritional support, blood components, monitoring patients, or combinations of these. When CVC is used in the traditional routes (eg, subclavian, jugular, and femoral veins), the complication rates range up to 15% and are mainly due to mechanical dysfunction, infection, and thrombosis. The peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) is an alternative option for CVC access. However, the clinical evidence for PICC compared to CVC is still under discussion. In this setting, this systematic review (SR) aims to assess the effects of PICC compared to CVC for intravenous access. METHODS: We will perform a comprehensive search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which compare PICC and traditional CVC for intravenous access. The search strategy will consider free text terms and controlled vocabulary (eg, MeSH and Entree) related to "peripherally inserted central venous catheter," "central venous access," "central venous catheter," "catheterisation, peripheral," "vascular access devices," "infusions, intravenous," "administration, intravenous," and "injections, intravenous." Searches will be carried out in these databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE (via Elsevier), Cochrane CENTRAL (via Wiley), IBECS, and LILACS (both via Virtual Health Library). We will consider catheter-related deep venous thrombosis and overall successful insertion rates as primary outcomes and haematoma, venous thromboembolism, reintervention derived from catheter dysfunction, catheter-related infections, and quality of life as secondary outcomes. Where results are not appropriate for a meta-analysis using RevMan 5 software (eg, if the data have considerable heterogeneity and are drawn from different comparisons), a descriptive analysis will be performed. RESULTS: Our SR will be conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the findings will be reported in compliance with PRISMA. CONCLUSION: Our study will provide evidence for the effects of PICC versus CVC for venous access. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This SR has obtained formal ethical approval and was prospectively registered in Open Science Framework. The findings of this SR will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications or conference presentations. REGISTRATION:: osf.io/xvhzf. ETHICAL APPROVAL: 69003717.2.0000.5505.
Subject(s)
Catheterization, Central Venous , Catheterization, Peripheral , Central Venous Catheters , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Systematic Reviews as TopicABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Intensive care units focus primarily on life support and treatment of critically ill patients, but there are many survivors with complications, such as generalized muscle disorders, functional disability and reduced quality of life after hospital discharge, resulting from prolonged stays in these units. The current evidence suggests that early mobilization-based rehabilitation (exercise initiated immediately after the patient's significant physiological changes have stabilized) in critically ill adults can alleviate these complications from immobility and critical illness. However, there are a lack of practice guidelines, conflicting perceptions about safety, and knowledge gaps about benefits in the critically ill paediatric population. Therefore, we aim to assess the effects of early mobilization for children in intensive therapy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Systematic searches will be carried out in Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Latin American and Caribbean Centre on Health Sciences Information, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature and physiotherapy evidence database databases at a minimum without date or language restrictions for relevant individual parallel, cross-over and cluster randomized controlled trials. In addition, a search will also be carried out in the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and in the clinical trial registries of ClinicalTrials.gov, looking for any on-going randomised controlled trials that compare early mobilization with any other type of intervention. Two review authors will independently perform data extraction and quality assessments of data from included studies, and any disagreements will be resolved by discussion or by arbitration. The primary outcomes will be mortality and adverse events. Secondary outcomes will include duration of critical care (days), duration of mechanical ventilation support, muscle strength, pain and neuropsychomotor development. The Cochrane handbook will be used for guidance. If the results are not appropriate for a meta-analysis in RevMan 5 software (e.g., if the data have considerable heterogeneity and are drawn from different comparisons), a descriptive analysis will be performed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol was prospectively registered at Open Science Framework and approved by the Ethics and Research Committee of the Federal University of Sao Paulo (8543210519). We intend to update the public registry used in this review, report any important protocol amendments and publish the results in a widely accessible journal. REGISTRATION:: osf.io/ebju9.
