Percutaneous central venous catheters versus peripheral cannulae for delivery of parenteral nutrition in neonates

Abstract

Parenteral nutrition for neonates may be delivered via a short peripheral cannula or a central venous catheter. The latter may either be inserted via the umbilicus or percutaneously. Because of the complications associated with umbilical venous catheter use, many neonatal units prefer to use percutaneously inserted catheters following the initial stabilisation period. The method of parenteral nutrition delivery may affect nutrient input and consequently growth and development. Although potentially more difficult to place, percutaneous central venous catheters may be more stable than peripheral cannulae, and need less frequent replacement. These delivery methods may also be associated with different risks of adverse events, including acquired systemic infection and extravasation injury. To determine the effect of infusion via a percutaneous central venous catheter versus a peripheral cannula on nutrient input, growth and development, and complications including systemic infection, or extravasation injuries in newborn infants who require parenteral nutrition. The standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group was used. This included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2007), MEDLINE (1966 - February 2007), EMBASE (1980 - February 2007), conference proceedings, and previous reviews. Randomised controlled trials that compared the effect of delivering parenteral nutrition via a percutaneous central venous catheter versus a peripheral cannulae in neonates. Data were extracted the data using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group, with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by each author, and synthesis of data using relative risk, risk difference and mean difference. Four trials eligible for inclusion were found. These trials recruited a total of 368 infants and reported a number of different outcomes. One study showed that the use of a percutaneous central venous catheter was associated with a decreased risk of cumulative nutritional deficit during the trial period: Mean difference in the percentage of the prescribed nutritional intake actually received: -7.1% (95% confidence interval -11.02, -3.2). In another trial, infants in the percutaneous central venous catheter group needed significantly fewer catheters/cannulae per infant during the trial period: Mean difference in the number of catheters/cannulae per infant: -3.2 (95% confidence interval -5.13, -1.27). Meta-analysis of data from all four trials did not find any evidence of an effect on the incidence of systemic infection: Typical relative risk: 0.94 (95% confidence interval 0.70, 1.25); typical risk difference: -0.02 (95% confidence interval -0.12, 0.08). Data from one small study suggest that the use of a percutaneous central venous catheter to deliver parenteral nutrition in newborn infants improves nutrient input. The significance of this in relation to long-term growth and developmental outcomes is unclear. Another study suggested that the use of a percutaneous central venous catheter rather than a peripheral cannula decreases the number of catheters/cannulae needed to deliver the nutrition. No evidence was found to suggest that percutaneous central venous catheter use increased the risk of adverse events, particularly systemic infection.