The Risk of Bloodstream Infection Associated with Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters Compared with Central Venous Catheters in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Background. Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are associated with central line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI). The magnitude of this risk relative to central venous catheters (CVCs) is unknown. Objective. To compare risk of CLABSI between PICCs and CVCs. Methods MEDLINE, Cin...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Infection control and hospital epidemiology 2013-09, Vol.34 (9), p.908-918 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 918 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 9 |
| container_start_page | 908 |
| container_title | Infection control and hospital epidemiology |
| container_volume | 34 |
| creator | Chopra, Vineet O’Horo, John C. Rogers, Mary A. M. Maki, Dennis G. Safdar, Nasia |
| description | Background. Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are associated with central line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI). The magnitude of this risk relative to central venous catheters (CVCs) is unknown.
Objective. To compare risk of CLABSI between PICCs and CVCs.
Methods MEDLINE, CinAHL, Scopus, EmBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched. Full-text studies comparing the risk of CLABSI between PICCs and CVCs were included. Studies involving adults 18 years of age or older who underwent insertion of a PICC or a CVC and reported CLABSI were included in our analysis. Studies were evaluated using the Downs and Black scale for risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were used to generate summary estimates of CLABSI risk in patients with PICCs versus CVCs.
Results. Of 1,185 studies identified, 23 studies involving 57,250 patients met eligibility criteria. Twenty of 23 eligible studies reported the total number of CLABSI episodes in patients with PICCs and CVCs. Pooled meta-analyses of these studies revealed that PICCs were associated with a lower risk of CLABSI than were CVCs (relative risk [RR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40–0.94). Statistical heterogeneity prompted subgroup analysis, which demonstrated that CLABSI reduction was greatest in outpatients (RR [95% CI], 0.22 [0.18–0.27]) compared with hospitalized patients who received PICCs (RR [95% CI], 0.73 [0.54–0.98]). Thirteen of the included 23 studies reported CLABSI per catheter-day. Within these studies, PICC-related CLABSI occurred as frequently as CLABSI from CVCs (incidence rate ratio [95% CI], 0.91 [0.46–1.79]).
Limitations. Only 1 randomized trial met inclusion criteria. CLABSI definition and infection prevention strategies were variably reported. Few studies reported infections by catheter-days.
Conclusions. Although PICCs are associated with a lower risk of CLABSI than CVCs in outpatients, hospitalized patients may be just as likely to experience CLABSI with PICCs as with CVCs. Consideration of risks and benefits before PICC use in inpatient settings is warranted. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1086/671737 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1418365984</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>10.1086/671737</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>10.1086/671737</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c337t-5d0226a48f8fa04f0a8f183908a45fa3648486a923c1956fe4783a7bea94b2873</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10d9u0zAUBnALgVg34BGQJQTiJmDHTmzvrlT8mTQEGgNxF50mx6pHEhcfd1MfizckVVvghitLPj9_R9bH2BMpXklh69e1kUaZe2wmq8oVtVX6PpsJ61xhS_X9hJ0S3QghjHPyITsplZPGCT1jv65XyK8C_eDR8zd9jB3lhDDwi9Fjm0Mc-ZwotgEydvwu5BX_jCmsV5ig77cTI0y70QLHPF3xBeQVZkzEF3FYQzq-Os6_4Rg39A8L04Zu02c653P-ZUsZB8ih5Vd4G_COw9jxj5ihmI_QbynQI_bAQ0_4-HCesa_v3l4vPhSXn95fLOaXRauUyUXVibKsQVtvPQjtBVgvrXLCgq48qFpbbWtwpWqlq2qP2lgFZong9LK0Rp2xl_vcdYo_N0i5GQK12Pcw4vSDRuoprq6c1RN9sadtikQJfbNOYYC0baRodvU0-3om-PSQuVkO2P1hxz4m8PwAgFrofYKxDfTXmbpS0uzcs727oRzT_9b9Br5Io9U</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1418365984</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Risk of Bloodstream Infection Associated with Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters Compared with Central Venous Catheters in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>Chopra, Vineet ; O’Horo, John C. ; Rogers, Mary A. M. ; Maki, Dennis G. ; Safdar, Nasia</creator><creatorcontrib>Chopra, Vineet ; O’Horo, John C. ; Rogers, Mary A. M. ; Maki, Dennis G. ; Safdar, Nasia</creatorcontrib><description>Background. Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are associated with central line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI). The magnitude of this risk relative to central venous catheters (CVCs) is unknown.
Objective. To compare risk of CLABSI between PICCs and CVCs.
Methods MEDLINE, CinAHL, Scopus, EmBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched. Full-text studies comparing the risk of CLABSI between PICCs and CVCs were included. Studies involving adults 18 years of age or older who underwent insertion of a PICC or a CVC and reported CLABSI were included in our analysis. Studies were evaluated using the Downs and Black scale for risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were used to generate summary estimates of CLABSI risk in patients with PICCs versus CVCs.
Results. Of 1,185 studies identified, 23 studies involving 57,250 patients met eligibility criteria. Twenty of 23 eligible studies reported the total number of CLABSI episodes in patients with PICCs and CVCs. Pooled meta-analyses of these studies revealed that PICCs were associated with a lower risk of CLABSI than were CVCs (relative risk [RR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40–0.94). Statistical heterogeneity prompted subgroup analysis, which demonstrated that CLABSI reduction was greatest in outpatients (RR [95% CI], 0.22 [0.18–0.27]) compared with hospitalized patients who received PICCs (RR [95% CI], 0.73 [0.54–0.98]). Thirteen of the included 23 studies reported CLABSI per catheter-day. Within these studies, PICC-related CLABSI occurred as frequently as CLABSI from CVCs (incidence rate ratio [95% CI], 0.91 [0.46–1.79]).
Limitations. Only 1 randomized trial met inclusion criteria. CLABSI definition and infection prevention strategies were variably reported. Few studies reported infections by catheter-days.
Conclusions. Although PICCs are associated with a lower risk of CLABSI than CVCs in outpatients, hospitalized patients may be just as likely to experience CLABSI with PICCs as with CVCs. Consideration of risks and benefits before PICC use in inpatient settings is warranted.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0899-823X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1559-6834</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1086/671737</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23917904</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press</publisher><subject>Adult ; Antibiotics ; Bacterial diseases ; Bacterial sepsis ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cardiac Catheterization - adverse effects ; Catheter-Related Infections - etiology ; Catheterization, Peripheral - adverse effects ; Catheters ; Central venous catheterization ; Chemotherapy ; Critical care ; Human bacterial diseases ; Humans ; Infections ; Infectious diseases ; Intensive care units ; Medical sciences ; Miscellaneous ; Nurses ; Nursing ; Original Article ; Peripheral catheterization ; Public health. Hygiene ; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine ; Risk Factors ; Total parenteral nutrition</subject><ispartof>Infection control and hospital epidemiology, 2013-09, Vol.34 (9), p.908-918</ispartof><rights>2013 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>2014 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c337t-5d0226a48f8fa04f0a8f183908a45fa3648486a923c1956fe4783a7bea94b2873</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c337t-5d0226a48f8fa04f0a8f183908a45fa3648486a923c1956fe4783a7bea94b2873</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=27653174$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23917904$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Chopra, Vineet</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O’Horo, John C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rogers, Mary A. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maki, Dennis G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Safdar, Nasia</creatorcontrib><title>The Risk of Bloodstream Infection Associated with Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters Compared with Central Venous Catheters in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis</title><title>Infection control and hospital epidemiology</title><addtitle>Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol</addtitle><description>Background. Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are associated with central line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI). The magnitude of this risk relative to central venous catheters (CVCs) is unknown.
Objective. To compare risk of CLABSI between PICCs and CVCs.
Methods MEDLINE, CinAHL, Scopus, EmBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched. Full-text studies comparing the risk of CLABSI between PICCs and CVCs were included. Studies involving adults 18 years of age or older who underwent insertion of a PICC or a CVC and reported CLABSI were included in our analysis. Studies were evaluated using the Downs and Black scale for risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were used to generate summary estimates of CLABSI risk in patients with PICCs versus CVCs.
Results. Of 1,185 studies identified, 23 studies involving 57,250 patients met eligibility criteria. Twenty of 23 eligible studies reported the total number of CLABSI episodes in patients with PICCs and CVCs. Pooled meta-analyses of these studies revealed that PICCs were associated with a lower risk of CLABSI than were CVCs (relative risk [RR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40–0.94). Statistical heterogeneity prompted subgroup analysis, which demonstrated that CLABSI reduction was greatest in outpatients (RR [95% CI], 0.22 [0.18–0.27]) compared with hospitalized patients who received PICCs (RR [95% CI], 0.73 [0.54–0.98]). Thirteen of the included 23 studies reported CLABSI per catheter-day. Within these studies, PICC-related CLABSI occurred as frequently as CLABSI from CVCs (incidence rate ratio [95% CI], 0.91 [0.46–1.79]).
Limitations. Only 1 randomized trial met inclusion criteria. CLABSI definition and infection prevention strategies were variably reported. Few studies reported infections by catheter-days.
Conclusions. Although PICCs are associated with a lower risk of CLABSI than CVCs in outpatients, hospitalized patients may be just as likely to experience CLABSI with PICCs as with CVCs. Consideration of risks and benefits before PICC use in inpatient settings is warranted.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Antibiotics</subject><subject>Bacterial diseases</subject><subject>Bacterial sepsis</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cardiac Catheterization - adverse effects</subject><subject>Catheter-Related Infections - etiology</subject><subject>Catheterization, Peripheral - adverse effects</subject><subject>Catheters</subject><subject>Central venous catheterization</subject><subject>Chemotherapy</subject><subject>Critical care</subject><subject>Human bacterial diseases</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infections</subject><subject>Infectious diseases</subject><subject>Intensive care units</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Miscellaneous</subject><subject>Nurses</subject><subject>Nursing</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Peripheral catheterization</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Total parenteral nutrition</subject><issn>0899-823X</issn><issn>1559-6834</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp10d9u0zAUBnALgVg34BGQJQTiJmDHTmzvrlT8mTQEGgNxF50mx6pHEhcfd1MfizckVVvghitLPj9_R9bH2BMpXklh69e1kUaZe2wmq8oVtVX6PpsJ61xhS_X9hJ0S3QghjHPyITsplZPGCT1jv65XyK8C_eDR8zd9jB3lhDDwi9Fjm0Mc-ZwotgEydvwu5BX_jCmsV5ig77cTI0y70QLHPF3xBeQVZkzEF3FYQzq-Os6_4Rg39A8L04Zu02c653P-ZUsZB8ih5Vd4G_COw9jxj5ihmI_QbynQI_bAQ0_4-HCesa_v3l4vPhSXn95fLOaXRauUyUXVibKsQVtvPQjtBVgvrXLCgq48qFpbbWtwpWqlq2qP2lgFZong9LK0Rp2xl_vcdYo_N0i5GQK12Pcw4vSDRuoprq6c1RN9sadtikQJfbNOYYC0baRodvU0-3om-PSQuVkO2P1hxz4m8PwAgFrofYKxDfTXmbpS0uzcs727oRzT_9b9Br5Io9U</recordid><startdate>20130901</startdate><enddate>20130901</enddate><creator>Chopra, Vineet</creator><creator>O’Horo, John C.</creator><creator>Rogers, Mary A. M.</creator><creator>Maki, Dennis G.</creator><creator>Safdar, Nasia</creator><general>University of Chicago Press</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130901</creationdate><title>The Risk of Bloodstream Infection Associated with Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters Compared with Central Venous Catheters in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis</title><author>Chopra, Vineet ; O’Horo, John C. ; Rogers, Mary A. M. ; Maki, Dennis G. ; Safdar, Nasia</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c337t-5d0226a48f8fa04f0a8f183908a45fa3648486a923c1956fe4783a7bea94b2873</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Antibiotics</topic><topic>Bacterial diseases</topic><topic>Bacterial sepsis</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cardiac Catheterization - adverse effects</topic><topic>Catheter-Related Infections - etiology</topic><topic>Catheterization, Peripheral - adverse effects</topic><topic>Catheters</topic><topic>Central venous catheterization</topic><topic>Chemotherapy</topic><topic>Critical care</topic><topic>Human bacterial diseases</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infections</topic><topic>Infectious diseases</topic><topic>Intensive care units</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Miscellaneous</topic><topic>Nurses</topic><topic>Nursing</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Peripheral catheterization</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Total parenteral nutrition</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Chopra, Vineet</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O’Horo, John C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rogers, Mary A. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maki, Dennis G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Safdar, Nasia</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Infection control and hospital epidemiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Chopra, Vineet</au><au>O’Horo, John C.</au><au>Rogers, Mary A. M.</au><au>Maki, Dennis G.</au><au>Safdar, Nasia</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Risk of Bloodstream Infection Associated with Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters Compared with Central Venous Catheters in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis</atitle><jtitle>Infection control and hospital epidemiology</jtitle><addtitle>Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol</addtitle><date>2013-09-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>34</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>908</spage><epage>918</epage><pages>908-918</pages><issn>0899-823X</issn><eissn>1559-6834</eissn><abstract>Background. Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are associated with central line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI). The magnitude of this risk relative to central venous catheters (CVCs) is unknown.
Objective. To compare risk of CLABSI between PICCs and CVCs.
Methods MEDLINE, CinAHL, Scopus, EmBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched. Full-text studies comparing the risk of CLABSI between PICCs and CVCs were included. Studies involving adults 18 years of age or older who underwent insertion of a PICC or a CVC and reported CLABSI were included in our analysis. Studies were evaluated using the Downs and Black scale for risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were used to generate summary estimates of CLABSI risk in patients with PICCs versus CVCs.
Results. Of 1,185 studies identified, 23 studies involving 57,250 patients met eligibility criteria. Twenty of 23 eligible studies reported the total number of CLABSI episodes in patients with PICCs and CVCs. Pooled meta-analyses of these studies revealed that PICCs were associated with a lower risk of CLABSI than were CVCs (relative risk [RR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40–0.94). Statistical heterogeneity prompted subgroup analysis, which demonstrated that CLABSI reduction was greatest in outpatients (RR [95% CI], 0.22 [0.18–0.27]) compared with hospitalized patients who received PICCs (RR [95% CI], 0.73 [0.54–0.98]). Thirteen of the included 23 studies reported CLABSI per catheter-day. Within these studies, PICC-related CLABSI occurred as frequently as CLABSI from CVCs (incidence rate ratio [95% CI], 0.91 [0.46–1.79]).
Limitations. Only 1 randomized trial met inclusion criteria. CLABSI definition and infection prevention strategies were variably reported. Few studies reported infections by catheter-days.
Conclusions. Although PICCs are associated with a lower risk of CLABSI than CVCs in outpatients, hospitalized patients may be just as likely to experience CLABSI with PICCs as with CVCs. Consideration of risks and benefits before PICC use in inpatient settings is warranted.</abstract><cop>Chicago, IL</cop><pub>University of Chicago Press</pub><pmid>23917904</pmid><doi>10.1086/671737</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0899-823X |
| ispartof | Infection control and hospital epidemiology, 2013-09, Vol.34 (9), p.908-918 |
| issn | 0899-823X 1559-6834 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1418365984 |
| source | MEDLINE; Cambridge University Press Journals Complete |
| subjects | Adult Antibiotics Bacterial diseases Bacterial sepsis Biological and medical sciences Cardiac Catheterization - adverse effects Catheter-Related Infections - etiology Catheterization, Peripheral - adverse effects Catheters Central venous catheterization Chemotherapy Critical care Human bacterial diseases Humans Infections Infectious diseases Intensive care units Medical sciences Miscellaneous Nurses Nursing Original Article Peripheral catheterization Public health. Hygiene Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine Risk Factors Total parenteral nutrition |
| title | The Risk of Bloodstream Infection Associated with Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters Compared with Central Venous Catheters in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T02%3A44%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Risk%20of%20Bloodstream%20Infection%20Associated%20with%20Peripherally%20Inserted%20Central%20Catheters%20Compared%20with%20Central%20Venous%20Catheters%20in%20Adults:%20A%20Systematic%20Review%20and%20Meta-Analysis&rft.jtitle=Infection%20control%20and%20hospital%20epidemiology&rft.au=Chopra,%20Vineet&rft.date=2013-09-01&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=908&rft.epage=918&rft.pages=908-918&rft.issn=0899-823X&rft.eissn=1559-6834&rft_id=info:doi/10.1086/671737&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E10.1086/671737%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1418365984&rft_id=info:pmid/23917904&rft_jstor_id=10.1086/671737&rfr_iscdi=true |