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
Comparative Study
. 2020 Jul 24;99(30):e20352.
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000020352.

Peripherally inserted central catheter versus central venous catheter for intravenous access: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

Felipe Kenzo Yadoya Santos  1 , Ronald Luiz Gomes Flumignan  2 , Libnah Leal Areias  1 , Anna Karina Paiva Sarpe  2 , Fabio Cabral Freitas Amaral  2 , Rafael Bernardes de Ávila  2 , Vladimir Tonello de Vasconcelos  2 , Henrique Jorge Guedes Neto  2 , Jorge Eduardo de Amorim  2 , Luis Carlos Uta Nakano  2
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Peripherally inserted central catheter versus central venous catheter for intravenous access: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

Felipe Kenzo Yadoya Santos et al. Medicine (Baltimore). .

Abstract

Background: Since the first description of the central venous catheter (CVC) in 1952, it has been used for the rapid administration of drugs, chemotherapy, as a route for nutritional support, blood components, monitoring patients, or combinations of these. When CVC is used in the traditional routes (eg, subclavian, jugular, and femoral veins), the complication rates range up to 15% and are mainly due to mechanical dysfunction, infection, and thrombosis. The peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) is an alternative option for CVC access. However, the clinical evidence for PICC compared to CVC is still under discussion. In this setting, this systematic review (SR) aims to assess the effects of PICC compared to CVC for intravenous access.

Methods: We will perform a comprehensive search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which compare PICC and traditional CVC for intravenous access. The search strategy will consider free text terms and controlled vocabulary (eg, MeSH and Entree) related to "peripherally inserted central venous catheter," "central venous access," "central venous catheter," "catheterisation, peripheral," "vascular access devices," "infusions, intravenous," "administration, intravenous," and "injections, intravenous." Searches will be carried out in these databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE (via Elsevier), Cochrane CENTRAL (via Wiley), IBECS, and LILACS (both via Virtual Health Library). We will consider catheter-related deep venous thrombosis and overall successful insertion rates as primary outcomes and haematoma, venous thromboembolism, reintervention derived from catheter dysfunction, catheter-related infections, and quality of life as secondary outcomes. Where results are not appropriate for a meta-analysis using RevMan 5 software (eg, if the data have considerable heterogeneity and are drawn from different comparisons), a descriptive analysis will be performed.

Results: Our SR will be conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the findings will be reported in compliance with PRISMA.

Conclusion: Our study will provide evidence for the effects of PICC versus CVC for venous access.

Ethics and dissemination: This SR has obtained formal ethical approval and was prospectively registered in Open Science Framework. The findings of this SR will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications or conference presentations. REGISTRATION:: osf.io/xvhzf.

Ethical approval: 69003717.2.0000.5505.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

There is not a conflict of interest either from the Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery of Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Brazil that provided structural resources or from the authors themselves who provided all additional financial resources, including publishing fees for the execution of this work.

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

References

    1. Ullman AJ, Marsh N, Mihala G, et al. Complications of central venous access devices: a systematic review. Pediatrics 2015;136:e1331–44. - PubMed
    1. Moureau N, Poole S, Murdock MA, et al. Central venous catheters in home infusion care: outcomes analysis in 50,470 patients. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2002;13:1009–16. - PubMed
    1. Miller DL, O’Grady NP. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections: recommendations relevant to interventional radiology. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2003;14(2 pt 1):133–6. - PubMed
    1. Fearonce G, Faraklas I, Saffle JR, et al. Peripherally inserted central venous catheters and central venous catheters in burn patients: a comparative review. J Burn Care Res 2010;31:31–5. - PubMed
    1. Petree C, Wright DL, Sanders V, et al. Reducing blood stream infections during catheter insertion. Radiol Technol 2012;83:532–40. - PubMed

Publication types