Objective:To perform a meta-analysis comparing the common complications of insertion of midline catheter and peripherally inserted central venous catheter(PICC),and to evaluate the safety of midline catheter and PICC.Methods:Retrieve data from China National Knowledge Infrastructure(CNKI),Wanfang Date,VIP database,Chinese Biology Medicine(CBM),PubMed,Embase and Cochrane Library.Comparison of randomized controlled trials and Meta-analysis were conducted using RevMan 5.4 software.Results:Data from 19 papers,totaling 1,798 subjects,were included.The Meta-analysis showed that the incidences of venous thrombosis(RR=0.21,95%CI 0.10-0.44)and catheter-related bloodstream infection(RR=0.19,95%CI 0.08-0.42)for insertion of midline catheters were statistically significant(both P<0.000 1).There were no significant differences in the incidence of phlebitis(RR=0.85,95%CI 0.53-1.36),catheter extravasation(RR=0.85,95%CI 0.46-1.57),catheter migration(RR=0.74,95%CI 0.41～1.34),catheter occlusion(RR=0.93,95%CI 0.58～1.50),or catheter dislodgement(RR=0.90,95%CI 0.35-2.31)compared with PICC(P>0.05).Among the midline catheter≥20 cm subgroup,the incidence of venous thrombosis(RR=0.20,95%CI 0.08-0.49)and catheter-related bloodstream infection(RR=0.16,95%CI 0.06-0.44),both were statistically significant(both P<0.05).Conclusion:The incidence of venous thrombosis and catheter-related bloodstream infection in midline catheters is lower than that in PICC.In the subgroup analysis of midine catheters with a length of≥20 cm,the incidence of venous thrombosis and catheter-related bloodstream infection is also lower than that in PICC.However,the use of midline catheters cannot reduce the incidence of phlebitis,catheter extravasation,catheter migration,catheter occlusion,and catheter dislodgement.
midline catheterperpherally inserted central venous cathercomplicationsMeta-analysis
维普
万方数据
