Comparison of catheter-related bloodstream infection between peripherally inserted central catheters and tunneled central venous catheters in patients receiving home parenteral nutrition: a meta-analysis

比较经外周静脉置入中心静脉导管和隧道式中心静脉导管在接受家庭肠外营养患者中的导管相关血流感染:一项荟萃分析

阅读:2

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) remains one of the most severe complications in patients receiving home parenteral nutrition. Tunneled central venous catheters (CVCs) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are the most commonly used devices for home parenteral nutrition. However, the relative risks of CRBSI from these devices remain controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the incidence of CRBSI between PICCs and tunneled CVCs in patients receiving home parenteral nutrition. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted from database inception to 3 June 2025 to identify studies comparing the incidence of CRBSI between PICCs and tunneled CVCs in patients receiving home parenteral nutrition. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to assess the relative risk of CRBSI associated with PICCs versus tunneled CVCs using either the fixed-effects model or the random-effects model. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: A total of 10 articles, involving 1,139 patients with PICCs or tunneled CVCs, were included in the meta-analysis. The mean CRBSI rate was 0.77 per 1,000 PICC-days and 1.01 per 1,000 tunneled CVC-days. The pooled analysis demonstrated that PICCs were associated with a significantly lower risk of CRBSI compared with tunneled CVCs (RR:0.40, 95%CI:0.33-0.49). Subgroup analyses stratified by study design, patient population, and CRBSI definition yielded consistent results, confirming the robustness of the primary findings. According to the GRADE approach, the quality of evidence was very low for the CRBSI rate. CONCLUSION: PICCs were associated with a lower risk of CRBSI than tunneled CVCs in patients receiving home parenteral nutrition. However, the certainty of evidence was very low; therefore, these findings should be interpreted with caution, and further high-quality studies are needed.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。