Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2019 Sep 4;11(9):2083.
doi: 10.3390/nu11092083.

Infectious Complications in Home Parenteral Nutrition: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Peripherally-Inserted Central Catheters with Other Central Catheters

Raquel Mateo-Lobo  1 , Javier Riveiro  1 , Belén Vega-Piñero  1 , José I Botella-Carretero  2   3
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Infectious Complications in Home Parenteral Nutrition: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Peripherally-Inserted Central Catheters with Other Central Catheters

Raquel Mateo-Lobo et al. Nutrients. .

Abstract

Background: Home parenteral nutrition (HPN) has become a common therapy. There is still controversy regarding the possibility that peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) may diminish catheter-related blood stream infection (CRBSI) rates.

Methods: We searched the PubMed database for studies reporting the rates of CRBSI with HPN. Study selection was performed independently by three investigators. Disagreements were discussed and resolved by consensus or by arbitration by an author not involved in the search. The National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tools was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies. Meta-analyses were performed using MetaXL 5.3 with the quality effects model.

Results: Screening of the article titles and abstracts yielded 134 full text articles for evaluation. Only three prospective studies that included appropriate data were considered for the final analysis. The relative risk of the CRBSI rate was 0.41 (0.14-1.17) for PICC vs. tunneled catheters. The relative risk of the CRBSI rate was 0.16 (0.04-0.64) for PICC vs. ports. The relative risk of the thrombosis rate was 3.16 (0.20-49.67) for PICCs vs. tunneled.

Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to show a difference in CRBSI rates between PICCs and tunneled catheters. On the other hand, PICCs showed lower CRBSI rates than ports. There was also no difference in the rate of catheter-related thrombosis and mechanical complications.

Keywords: catheter-related infection; central catheter; home parenteral nutrition; peripherally inserted central catheter; port; tunneled catheter.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The Authors declare no conflict of interest for the present study.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot showing the relative risk (RR) of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) vs. tunneled central catheters. I2, a measure of heterogeneity.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plot showing the relative risk (RR) of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) vs. ports. I2, a measure of heterogeneity.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plot showing the relative risk (RR) of catheter-related thrombosis with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) vs. tunneled central catheters. I2, a measure of heterogeneity.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Forest plot showing the relative risk (RR) of catheter-related mechanical complications with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) vs. tunneled central catheters. I2, a measure of heterogeneity.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Wanden-Berghe Lozano C., Cunill J.L.P., Compes C.C., Boluda E.R., Jimenez M.I.M., Candela C.G., Casas N.V., Pelaez R.B., de la Cruz A.P., Lazaro M.F.P., et al. [Home and Ambulatory Artificial Nutrition (Nadya) Report. Home Parenteral Nutrition in Spain, 2017] Nutr. Hosp. 2018;35:1491–1496. doi: 10.20960/nh.2364. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hortencio T.D., Arendt B.M., Teterina A., Jeejeebhoy K.N., Gramlich L.M., Whittaker J.S., Armstrong D., Raman M., Nogueira R.J., Allard J.P. Changes in Home Parenteral Nutrition Practice Based on the Canadian Home Parenteral Nutrition Patient Registry. JPEN J. Parenter. Enteral Nutr. 2017;41:830–836. doi: 10.1177/0148607115609289. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Winkler M.F., DiMaria-Ghalili R.A., Guenter P., Resnick H.E., Robinson L., Lyman B., Ireton-Jones C., Banchik L.H., Steiger E. Characteristics of a Cohort of Home Parenteral Nutrition Patients at the Time of Enrollment in the Sustain Registry. JPEN J. Parenter. Enteral Nutr. 2016;40:1140–1149. doi: 10.1177/0148607115586575. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Farmer D.G., Venick R.S., Colangelo J., Esmailian Y., Yersiz H., Duffy J.P., Cortina G.R., Artavia K., Ngo K., McDiarmid S.V., et al. Pretransplant Predictors of Survival after Intestinal Transplantation: Analysis of a Single-Center Experience of More Than 100 Transplants. Transplantation. 2010;90:1574–1580. doi: 10.1097/TP.0b013e31820000a1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wanden-Berghe C., Nolasco A., Planas M., Sanz-Valero J., Rodriguez T., Cuerda C., Guardiola R., Castello-Botia I. Health-Related Quality of Life According to the Main Caregiver in Patients with Home Nutritional Support. Med. Clin. (Barc) 2008;131:281–284. doi: 10.1016/S0025-7753(08)72258-9. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms