Safety and efficacy of midline catheters versus peripheral intravenous catheters: A pilot randomized controlled trial

Comparison of complication rates between midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Midline catheters (MCs) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are essential for reliable vascular access in patients. Despite their prevalent use, comparative risk assessments of these catheters, particularly from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), remain scarce. This meta-analysis primarily focuses on RCTs to evaluate and compare the incidence of complications associated with MCs and PICCs. We conducted a comprehensive search of databases including the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Scopus and ProQuest, up to April 2024. The primary outcomes analysed were total complications and catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs), while secondary outcomes included catheter dwell time and thrombosis incidence. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. Of 831 initially identified articles, five trials involving 608 patients met the inclusion criteria. MCs exhibited a significantly higher rate of total complications compared with PICCs (relative risk = 1.95, 95% confidence interval = 1.23-3.08, P=0.005, I2= 0%). MCs also had shorter dwell times and a higher incidence of premature removal. However, no significant differences were observed in the rates of CRBSIs or thrombosis between MCs and PICCs. PICCs are associated with fewer total complications and longer dwell times compared with MCs, which tend to be more often removed prematurely. Thrombosis rates were similar between the two catheter types, underscoring the need for careful catheter selection based on specific patient conditions and treatment duration. Further research, particularly additional RCTs, is necessary to confirm these findings and guide optimal catheter selection in clinical practice.

Infiltration and Extravasation Risk with Midline Catheters: A Narrative Literature Review

Midline catheters have recently gained popularity in clinical use, with a common reason being the reduction of central venous catheter use and central line-associated bloodstream infections. At the same time, the number of nononcology vesicant medications has increased, and midline catheters are frequently being used for infusions of vesicant medications. The Infusion Nurses Society (INS) Vesicant Task Force identified midline catheter use as a possible risk factor for extravasation and concluded that a thorough literature review was necessary. This review highlights the variations in catheter terminology and tip locations, the frequency of infiltration and extravasation in published studies, and case reports of infiltration and extravasation from midline catheters. It also examines the many clinical issues requiring evidence-based decision-making for the most appropriate type of vascular access devices. After more than 30 years of clinical practice with midline catheters and what appears to be a significant number of studies, evidence is still insufficient to answer questions about infusion of vesicant and irritant medications through midline catheters. Given the absence of consensus on tip location, inadequate evidence of clinical outcomes, and importance of patient safety, the continuous infusion of vesicants, all parenteral nutrition formulas, and infusates with extremes in pH and osmolarity should be avoided through midline catheters.

The performance and complications of long peripheral venous catheters: A retrospective single-centre study

BACKGROUND

Intravenous therapies are essential for hospitalised patients. The rapid dissemination of portable ultrasound machines has eased ultrasound-guided intravenous access and facilitated increased use of long peripheral venous catheters (LPCs). This study aimed to evaluate the clinical performance and complications of LPCs.

METHODS

Retrospective, observational single-site study. Data from all consecutively inserted LPCs during a period of 18 months was evaluated. The primary endpoint was the all-cause incidence rate of catheter removal. Secondary endpoints included specific reasons for the catheter removal and the associations between predefined characteristics of the patients, the infusions and the catheters with catheter failure.

RESULTS

During the period, 751 PVCs were inserted in 457 patients. The reasons for catheter removal were recorded in 563 cases. The overall incidence rate of catheter removal was 95.8/1000 catheter days (95% CI 88.4-103.8). The median dwell time was 8 days (IQR 5-14), and the total dwell time was 6136 days. Catheter failure occurred in 283 (50.3%) cases, of which the most common cause was phlebitis (n = 101, 17.9%). In multivariable analyses, the use of the cephalic vein was significantly associated with both all-cause catheter failure (p < .001) and catheter failure due to phlebitis (p < .001). In multivariable analyses, vancomycin infusion was not significantly associated with all-cause catheter failure (HR 1.15 (0.55-2.42), p = .71) or catheter failure due to phlebitis (HR 1.49 (0.49-4.53), p = .49).

CONCLUSION

The overall incidence rate of catheter removal was 95.8/1000 catheter days, and the most common causes of catheter failure were phlebitis, infiltration and unintended catheter removal. The use of the cephalic vein was significantly associated with catheter failure in multivariable analyses. We did not find an association between vancomycin infusion and catheter failure in multivariable analyses.

Complications associated to midline- and long peripheral catheters in adults. Systematic review of literature and proposal for a standardized model for data collection

INTRODUCTION

Long peripheral catheters (LPCs) and midline catheters (MCs) are indiscriminately labelled with different names, leading to misclassifications both in primary and secondary studies. The available studies used different methods to report the incidence of catheter-related complications, affecting the possibility of properly comparing the catheter outcomes. The aim of this review was to explore the complications related to LPCs and MCs after reclassifying according to their length.

METHODS

Systematic literature review based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, conducted on PubMed, Scopus and CINAHL databases. The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Data regarding LPCs and MCs were compared. Catheter outcomes were classified into major and minor complications, recomputed and reported as cases/1000 catheter-days.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included. Over-half of the devices were correctly labelled by the authors, misclassifications affected particularly LPCs improperly labelled MCs. The cumulative incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections was 0.3 and 0.4/1000 catheter-days, that of symptomatic catheter-related thrombosis was 0.9 and 1.8/1000 catheter-days for MCs and LPCs, respectively. Minor complications and catheter failure were higher for LPCs.

CONCLUSIONS

A misclassification exists in the labelling of MCs and LPCs. A widespread heterogeneity of diagnostic criteria adopted to classify the catheters' outcomes was found, exposing the risk of misestimating the incidence of complications and undermining the possibility of effectively comparing results of the published research. We proposed a list of definitions and relevant variables as a first step toward the development of standardized criteria to be adopted for research purposes.

Midline Catheter Use in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

Neonates admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) are a unique population who most often begin life acutely or critically ill. Venous access is required by most acutely/critically ill neonates, especially those born preterm. Access is required for implementing management strategies such as stabilization, medications, fluids, nutrition, and transfusion of blood products. However, achieving and maintaining venous access in these neonates can be difficult, especially in preterm infants due to a myriad of contributing factors. Peripheral intravenous (PIV) catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) are 2 common vascular access approaches used in the NICU and have traditionally been the most studied in the neonatal literature. Both options offer advantages and disadvantages. An alternative to PIVs and PICCs is the midline peripheral catheter (MPC), which in the literature may also be referred to as extended dwell peripheral intravenous catheters. Depending on the intended use, the MPC offers a venous access approach between a PIV and PICC. Usage of MPCs in the NICU is slowly increasing with the limited published evidence suggesting they are viable option when considering the need for vascular access. The purpose of this article is to present the advantages and disadvantages of MPCs as an alternative approach for venous access in neonates when appropriate.

Association between peripheral intravenous catheters and clinical characteristics in the development of phlebitis

BACKGROUND

Serious complications can develop from erroneous insertion of a peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC). Successful PIVC insertion has a great place in the continuation of IV treatment without causing complications that may require the removal of the PIVC.

METHODS

The population for this prospective observational study included patients who had undergone PIVC insertion in the surgical, intensive care, and inpatient units of a large teaching and research hospital in Istanbul. Data were collected via a patient information form, a PIVC and treatment information form, the Visual Infusion Phlebitis (VIP) scale, and a PIVC nurse observation form. The SPSS 24 software package was used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Of the 168 patients enrolled, 64.9% (n = 109) were male, and the mean age was 56.71 ± 17.97 years. The mean PIVC dwell time was 73.46 ± 21.57 h, and 32.7% (n = 55) of the catheters were removed due to discharge from hospital. Overall, 29.2% (n = 49) of the cases developed phlebitis, with half of the cases (51%, n = 25) developing grade 2 phlebitis and developed within 48 h in 38.8% of cases (n = 19). The mean PIVC dwell time was significantly lower in patients with phlebitis than in those with no phlebitis (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

It was determined that PIVC dwell time could be increased by routine surveillance to monitor for phlebitis regularly. It is recommended that education programs for nurses be developed to prevent PIVC-related complications.

Heparin versus normal saline for the care of peripheral intravenous catheters in children: A meta-analysis

AIM

To conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the role of heparin versus normal saline lock in the care of peripheral intravenous catheters.

DESIGN

A meta-analysis.

METHODS

This meta-analysis searched nine databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on heparin versus normal saline for the care of peripheral intravenous catheters in children up to April 5, 2023. The quality of included RCTs was evaluated using the risk of bias tool of Cochrane library. RevMan5.3 software was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs with a total of 1255 children were involved. Meta-analysis indicated that heparin lock reduced the incidence of blockage of peripheral intravenous catheter [OR = 2.01, 95% CI (1.42,2.84), p < 0.001], prolonged the duration of peripheral intravenous catheter indwelling[MD = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.75, -0.11), p = 0.008]. There were no statistical differences in the incidence of phlebitis [OR = 1.02, 95% CI (0.59, 1.74), p = 0.95 W].

PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Heparin may have more benefits in the nursing care of peripheral intravenous catheters compared with normal saline.