Use of peripherally inserted central venous catheters and midline catheters for palliative care in patients with cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and midline catheters (MCs) may offer convenient intravenous access, but evidence to support their place in palliative care is limited. This review aimed to assess catheter indications, utilization, complications, dwell time, and patient experiences in cancer patients receiving palliative care.

METHODS

A systematic search for studies on catheter utilization for supportive or symptom treatment was conducted in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane, and CENTRAL databases. Studies with a study population or a subgroup of palliative care cancer patients were included. Study quality was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Quality assessment tool.

RESULTS

Of 7631 unique titles, 17 articles were examined in detail, all published between 2002 and 2022. Median catheter dwell time varied from 15 to 194 days, the longest when utilized for home parenteral nutrition. For pain and symptom management, the typical duration was 2-4 weeks, often until the patient's death. Complication rates were minimal, with thrombosis, infections, and occlusion ranging from 0 to 2.46 incidents per 1000 catheter days. In studies from palliative care services, patients reported minimal distress during procedures and high user satisfaction. Quality of life assessments post-procedure improved, possibly influenced by concurrent specialist palliative care provision. All studies were assessed to be of moderate or weak quality.

CONCLUSION

PICC and MC are safe and valuable tools in palliative care cancer patients who would benefit from intravenous access for symptom management. Further studies are needed to clarify indications for PICC or MC in palliative care.

The First Use of a Midline Catheter in Outpatient Pain Management

Midline catheters (MCs) are used to deliver intravenous therapy lasting over 5 days to patients in hospitals. However, the constant development of home and outpatient care is challenging medical teams to provide effective and safe planned therapy to patients under such conditions. We describe the first time an MC was used in outpatient pain management in Poland. A 60-year-old man presented to the Pain Management Clinic with a history of RCC of the left kidney and lumbar back pain radiating to the left knee joint. The person whose case is described below had poor peripheral veins. He intravenously received lidocaine for 10 days via a midline catheter with a good response.

Use and safety of peripherally inserted central catheters and midline catheters in palliative care cancer patients: a retrospective review

PURPOSE

Some cancer patients in palliative care require intravenous administration of symptom relieving drugs. Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and midline catheters (MCs) provide easy and accessible intravenous access. However, limited evidence supports the use of these devices in palliative care. The aim was to assess the use, safety, and efficacy of PICC and MC in this patient population.

METHODS

A retrospective study of all palliative care cancer patients who received PICC or MC at the Department of Palliative Medicine at Akershus University Hospital between 2020 and 2022.

RESULTS

A total of 374 patients were included; 239 patients received a PICC and 135 an MC with a total catheterization duration of 11,698 days. The catheters remained in place until death in 91% of patients, with a median catheter dwell time of 21 days for PICCs and 2 days for MCs. The complication rate was 3.3 per 1000 catheter days, with minor bleeding and accidental dislocation as the most common. The catheters were utilized primarily for opioids and other symptom directed treatments, and 89% of patients received a patient or nurse-controlled analgesia pump. Patients with PICC or MC discharged to home or nursing homes spent 81% of their time out of hospital.

CONCLUSION

PICC and MC provide safe parenteral access for palliative care cancer patients where intravenous symptom treatment is indicated. Their use can facilitate intravenous symptom treatment beyond the confines of a hospital and supplement the traditional practice relying on subcutaneous administration.

Impact of terminal tip location of midline catheters on catheter-related complications and indwelling duration in elderly patients

AIM

To investigate the relationship between the position of the midline catheter tip and the frequency and type of complications associated with its placement.

DESIGN

A cohort study was performed on patients between May 2018 and December 2021 who underwent midline catheter placement at our institution. Patients were divided into two groups, superficial implementation and deep implementation, based on the midline catheter tip location relative to the clavicle.

METHODS

Clinical data and outcome parameters, including the numbers and types of midline catheter-related complications, day of occurrence and catheter indwell duration, were recorded.

RESULTS

Catheter-related complications occurred in 14 individuals. Compared with the superficial implementation group, the incidence of complications in the deep catheterization group was significantly reduced, with a delayed first occurrence time, and a prolonged catheter indwelling time. The results suggested that locating the midline catheter tip in the distal segment of the axillary vein may reduce catheter-related complication incidence and prolong the indwelling duration.

Comparing Complication Rates of Midline Catheter vs Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and midlines are commonly used devices for reliable vascular access. Infection and thrombosis are the main adverse effects of these catheters. We aimed to evaluate the relative risk of complications from midlines and PICCs.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. The primary outcomes were catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) and thrombosis. Secondary outcomes evaluated included mortality, failure to complete therapy, catheter occlusion, phlebitis, and catheter fracture. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

Results

Of 8368 citations identified, 20 studies met the eligibility criteria, including 1 RCT and 19 observational studies. Midline use was associated with fewer patients with CRBSI compared with PICCs (odds ratio [OR], 0.24; 95% CI, 0.15-0.38). This association was not observed when we evaluated risk per catheter. No significant association was found between catheters when evaluating risk of localized thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. A subgroup analysis based on location of thrombosis showed higher rates of superficial venous thrombosis in patients using midlines (OR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.48-3.57). We did not identify any significant difference between midlines and PICCs for the secondary outcomes.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that patients who use midlines might experience fewer CRBSIs than those who use PICCs. However, the use of midline catheters was associated with greater risk of superficial vein thrombosis. These findings can help guide future cost-benefit analyses and direct comparative RCTs to further characterize the efficacy and risks of PICCs vs midline catheters.

Usefulness of Midline Catheters versus Peripheral Venous Catheters in an Inpatient Unit: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

Canalization of vascular accesses is one of the most used techniques in hospitalization units. When talking about peripherally inserted catheters, we can differentiate between peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVC), midline catheters, and long peripheral catheters (LPC). Midline catheters are rarely used despite being recommended for intravenous therapies lasting more than six days. This research is a pilot study of a longitudinal clinical trial. It aims to compare the complications associated with intravenous therapy between the control group (CG) with a PIVC and the experimental group (EG) with a midline in an Internal Medicine Unit of a Spanish hospital for three months. In this study, 44 subjects participated, 25 in the CG and 19 in the EG. The duration of cannulation was longer in the experimental group (8.13 days vs. 3.22, p < 0.001), and the appearance of phlebitis was more significant in the control group (19 patients in CG and 25 patients in EG). Midlines have presented a longer duration of cannulation and fewer complications than the PIVC. This protocol was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05512117).

Midline Catheters: Could They Replace a Central Vascular Access Device?

In the past 30 years, midline catheter use has grown rapidly. For several reasons, many providers and facilities are attempting to reduce the number of central venous catheters and subsequent central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) by using midline catheters. Vessel preservation requires attention to all vascular access device (VAD)-associated complications and not only central line bloodstream infection. There is still much confusion about the appropriate tip location and the characteristics of fluids and medications that can safely be infused through a midline catheter residing in a peripheral vein. The Infusion Therapy Standards of Practice (the Standards) focuses on assessment of characteristics of infusion therapies that must be considered for VAD selection as an evidence-based list of fluids and medications for infusion through peripheral veins has yet to be established. This review of midline catheter studies evaluates the evidence regarding the substitution of a midline catheter for a central venous catheter. Many issues need to be addressed, such as studies that include an outcome list that mixes defined clinical complications (eg, thrombosis) with signs and symptoms of complications (eg, leaking). Another issue is basing a major change of clinical practice on retrospective chart reviews. Although a midline catheter may be appropriate for some patients, additional studies of a higher level of evidence are needed before this major practice change should occur.

The Practice and Complications of Midline Catheters: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Midline catheters are considered "midway" regarding vascular access. The objective of this systematic review was to explore the current practice, dwell time, and complication rates of midline catheters.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING

Search on four databases, PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Embase, were conducted for English language articles published after the year 2000.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 987 articles were identified, of which 31 manuscripts met the inclusion criteria and were selected for review. Quality assurance was performed based on the Newcastle-Ottawa score. Average dwell time and complication rates were calculated for studies involving adult patients and adjusted for sample size. This analysis included data from the placement of 18,972 midline catheters across five countries. Aside from two randomized control trials, most of the studies analyzed were cohort studies. One pediatric and two neonatal studies were included. The average dwell time was 16.3 days (n = 4,412). The adjusted mean infection rate was 0.28/1,000 catheter days, with 64% of studies not reporting any infection with midline catheter. The failure rate of midline catheters was 12.5%. Adjusted average rates of other significant complications included the following: deep vein thrombosis (4.1%), dislodgement (5.0%), occlusion (3.8%), phlebitis (3.4%), and infiltration (1.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

The dwell times and failure rates of midline catheters compare favorably against published data on other types of catheters. Their infection rates are also lower than the reported rates of central venous catheters; however, they have a higher rate of mechanical complications. Active surveillance of infections due to midline catheters is recommended. More data are needed from pediatric and neonatal populations.

The efficacy of midline catheters-a prospective, randomized, active-controlled study

OBJECTIVES

This study was performed to investigate whether an intravenous (IV) strategy based on new-generation midline catheters is an efficacious alternative to a conventional IV strategy consisting of peripheral venous catheters and central venous catheters, for patients needing IV therapy exceeding 5 days.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Patients requiring more than 5 days of IV treatment were randomized to either a midline catheter-based IV strategy or a conventional strategy. The primary endpoint was the composite of the insertion of a central venous catheter (CVC) or the need for four or more peripheral venous catheter (PVC) insertions. The secondary outcomes included catheter dwell times and reasons for premature removal.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty patients were included. The fraction of patients receiving four or more PVCs or having a CVC inserted was 12/58 (21%) in the midline group versus 38/58 (66%) in the conventional group (p <  0.001); the number needed to treat was 2.2. The median overall catheter dwell time was 7 days (range 0-60 days) in the midline group and 4 days (range 0-84 days) in the conventional group (p =  0.002).

CONCLUSION

In patients requiring more than 5 days of IV therapy, a midline catheter strategy reduced the need for insertion of a CVC or four or more PVCs.