Abstract
The purpose of this systematic study is to compare the risks associated with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) and midline catheters (MC). International electronic databases like Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched systematically from the earliest date to December 13, 2022, using keywords extracted from Medical Subject Headings like "Peripheral catheterization", "Peripherally inserted central catheter", and "Midline catheter". Additionally, Iranian databases like Iranmedex were looked up. The cross-sectional study appraisal tool (AXIS tool) was used to evaluate the quality of the studies that were a part of this review. In total, 12,526 patients participated in five cross-sectional studies. Of the participants, 52.33% were male. Participants had 7,594 PICCs and 6,712 MCs. The complications of PICC in patients included deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (2.34%), occlusion (4.02%), infection (positive culture) (2.02%), leakage (0.52%), pain (3.09%), dislodgment (2.54%), phlebitis (0.73%), thromboembolism (0.12%), bleeding (3.09%), fracture/broke (1.03%), nonpatent (1.46%), and local event (10.00%). Also, MC complications included DVT (3.91%), occlusion (2.65%), infection (positive culture) (0.96%), leakage (4.40%), pain (2.70%), dislodgment (5.96%), phlebitis (1.68%), infiltration (5.91%), thromboembolism (1.30%), bleeding (1.73%), fracture/broke (0.86%), nonpatent (8.50%), edema (0.50%), and local event (10.97%). The rate of infection and occlusion was higher in PICC. While the rate of thrombosis was higher in MC. Therefore, the healthcare team, especially nurses, can reduce the rate of complications by carefully preparing the skin, using aseptic techniques, and taking care of the catheter site.
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call