Effectiveness and Safety of Methods to Prevent Bloodstream and Other Infections and Noninfectious Complications Associated With Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) have a 29% complication rate. This systematic review evaluated 25 interventions to prevent PICC-associated infectious and noninfectious complications in participants of all ages. METHODS: We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, World Health Organization Global Index Medicus, CINAHL) and reference lists for randomized (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled trials published between 1 January 1980-8 May 2024. We dually selected studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data, and rated certainty of evidence (COE). We included single interventions of interest and combinations of at least 2 (bundle/multimodal). If 3 or more RCTs existed, we conducted Bayesian random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: Seventy-four studies met our eligibility criteria (60 evaluated single interventions, 14 bundle/multimodal), addressing 13 of 25 research questions. The majority were conducted in high-income countries; 36 focused on neonates. Evidence was very uncertain for 11 of the 13 research questions. Stronger COE showed that ultrasound-guided catheter insertion reduced phlebitis/thrombophlebitis in adults compared with non-ultrasound-guided (5 RCTs; risk ratio [RR], 0.19; 95% credible interval, .08-.50); silicone catheters increased phlebitis/thrombophlebitis compared with nonsilicone (1 RCT; RR, 2.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-3.17). Bundle interventions decreased local infections (1 RCT; RR, 0.47; 95% CI, .31-.72) and phlebitis/thrombophlebitis in adults (1 RCT; RR, 0.35; 95% CI, .22-.56) compared with routine care. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound-guided catheter insertion and nonsilicone catheters effectively prevented PICC complications. The evidence for other comparisons was too uncertain to draw conclusions, highlighting the urgent need for additional studies on prevention and control interventions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".