Long peripheral catheters in children: A scoping review.
Journal
Journal of hospital medicine
ISSN: 1553-5606
Titre abrégé: J Hosp Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101271025
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2022
12 2022
Historique:
revised:
15
08
2022
received:
02
06
2022
accepted:
25
08
2022
pubmed:
28
9
2022
medline:
6
12
2022
entrez:
27
9
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Long peripheral catheters (LPCs) are emerging vascular access devices used for short-medium term vascular access needs. Literature in adults suggests LPCs have longer dwell-times than peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVs) and lower rates of serious complications than peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). The role of LPCs in children is less established. The objective of this scoping review is to describe and synthesize the existing literature on the effectiveness and safety of LPCs in children. This review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Searches were done in MEDLINE (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, CINAHL (Ebsco), and Google Scholar most recently on February 22, 2022. Studies were included if published in English on or after 2000 and included patients <18 years of age. Twenty-one studies were included. The body of literature is variable in quality, measurements, and reported outcomes. Median dwell-time ranged from 5 to 14 days. The rate of completion of therapy ranged from 20% to 86%. Dislodgement, occlusion, and infiltration were the most common complications reported (0%-31%). Venous thromboembolism rates ranged from 0% to 13%. The rate of catheter-related bloodstream infection was 0% in 9 of 10 studies. Less than 50% of studies reported comparative outcomes. LPCs show promising outcomes in select populations, with longer dwell-time than PIVs and possibly lower rates of serious complications than PICCs. However, more research is needed to clarify the optimal use of LPCs in pediatrics.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Long peripheral catheters (LPCs) are emerging vascular access devices used for short-medium term vascular access needs. Literature in adults suggests LPCs have longer dwell-times than peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVs) and lower rates of serious complications than peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). The role of LPCs in children is less established. The objective of this scoping review is to describe and synthesize the existing literature on the effectiveness and safety of LPCs in children.
METHODS
This review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Searches were done in MEDLINE (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, CINAHL (Ebsco), and Google Scholar most recently on February 22, 2022. Studies were included if published in English on or after 2000 and included patients <18 years of age.
RESULTS
Twenty-one studies were included. The body of literature is variable in quality, measurements, and reported outcomes. Median dwell-time ranged from 5 to 14 days. The rate of completion of therapy ranged from 20% to 86%. Dislodgement, occlusion, and infiltration were the most common complications reported (0%-31%). Venous thromboembolism rates ranged from 0% to 13%. The rate of catheter-related bloodstream infection was 0% in 9 of 10 studies. Less than 50% of studies reported comparative outcomes.
CONCLUSION
LPCs show promising outcomes in select populations, with longer dwell-time than PIVs and possibly lower rates of serious complications than PICCs. However, more research is needed to clarify the optimal use of LPCs in pediatrics.
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1000-1009Informations de copyright
© 2022 Society of Hospital Medicine.
Références
Paterson RS, Chopra V, Brown E, et al. Selection and insertion of vascular access devices in pediatrics: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2020;145:S243-S268.
Ullman AJ, Marsh N, Mihala G, Cooke M, Rickard CM. Complications of central venous access devices: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2015;136:e1331-e1344.
Indarwati F, Mathew S, Munday J, Keogh S. Incidence of peripheral intravenous catheter failure and complications in paediatric patients: systematic review and meta analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2020;102:103488.
Ullman AJ, Chopra V, Brown E, et al. Developing appropriateness criteria for pediatric vascular access. Pediatrics. 2020;145:S233-S242.
Qin KR, Pittiruti M, Nataraja RM, Pacilli M. Long peripheral catheters and midline catheters: insights from a survey of vascular access specialists. J Vasc Access. 2021;22:905-910.
Qin KR, Nataraja RM, Pacilli M. Long peripheral catheters: is it time to address the confusion? J Vasc Access. 2019;20:457-460.
Gorski LA, Hadaway L, Hagle ME, et al. Infusion therapy standards of practice, 8th edition. J Infus Nurs. 2021;44:1.
Qin KR, Ensor N, Barnes R, Englin A, Nataraja RM, Pacilli M. Long peripheral catheters for intravenous access in adults and children: a systematic review of the literature. J Vasc Access. 2021;22:767-777.
Tripathi S, Kumar S, Kaushik S. The practice and complications of midline catheters: a systematic review. Crit Care Med. 2021;49:140. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000004764
Moureau N, Sigl G, Hill M. How to establish an effective midline program: a case study of 2 hospitals. J Assoc Vasc Access. 2015;20:179-188.
Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol Theory Pract. 2005;8:19-32.
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467-473.
Leclercq E, Leeflang MMG, Van Dalen EC, Kremer LCM. Validation of search filters for identifying pediatric studies in PubMed. J Pediatr. 2013;162:629-634.
Turner MA, Unsworth V, David TJ. Intravenous long-lines in children with cystic fibrosis: a multidisciplinary approach. J R Soc Med. 2002;95:11-21.
Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5:210.
Rea KE, Rao P, Hill E, Saylor KM, Cousino MK. Families' experiences with pediatric family-centered rounds: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2018;141(3):e20171883. doi:10.1542/peds.2017-1883
Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:401-406.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71
Casacchia C, Lozano M, Barrows J, Schomberg J. Novel use of a midline catheter for therapeutic and donor apheresis in the pediatric setting. In AABB Conference; 2020.
Casacchia C, Lozano M, Schomberg J, Barrows J, Salcedo T, Puthenveetil G. Novel use of a midline catheter for therapeutic and donor apheresis in children and adults. J Clin Apher. 2021;36:711-718.
Kleidon TM, Schults JA, Wainwright C, et al. Comparison of midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters to reduce the need for general anesthesia in children with respiratory disease: a feasibility randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Anesth. 2021;31:985-995.
Qin KR, Ensor N, Barnes R, Englin A, Nataraja RM, Pacilli M. Standard versus long peripheral catheters for multiday IV therapy: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2021;147:e2020000877.
Anderson J, Greenwell A, Louderback J, Polivka BJ, Behr JH. Comparison of outcomes of extended dwell/midline peripheral intravenous catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters in children. J Assoc Vasc Access. 2016;21:158-164.
Romitti MG, Perez CR, Pezzotti E, Motta M, Risso FM. Long peripheral catheters in neonates: filling the gap between short peripheral catheters and epicutaneous-caval catheters? J Vasc Access. 2021:11297298211057377. doi:10.1177/11297298211057377
Chenoweth KB, Guo JW, Chan B. The extended dwell peripheral intravenous catheter is an alternative method of NICU intravenous access. Adv Neonatal Care. 2018;18:295-301.
Glazner J, Prentice E, Browne B, et al. Improving the venous access service and introducing midline catheters for children with cystic fibrosis [abstract 513]. Cystic Fibrosis Conference. 2013;394.
Glazner J, Steinfort K, Hu YJ, Browne W, Smith I, Brasher C. Short midline catheters: high success rates for antibiotic therapy in children with cystic fibrosis. J Vasc Access. 2021:1-6. doi:10.1177/11297298211035310
Holt D, Guzzi L, de Ferrer K, Stebel M. Use of midline catheters in a pediatric population: a product evaluation. J Assoc Vasc Access. 2016;21:261-262.
Roveda A, Sodani P, Gallucci C, et al. Midline catheters as alternative vascular device in pediatric thalassemic patients waiting for bone marrow transplantation [abstract 1827]. Haematologica. 2009;94(s2):691.
Dawson D. Midline catheters in neonatal patients: evaluating a change in practice. J Vasc Access Devices. 2002;7:17-19.
Federica B, Nizar Yahya B, Hevan Al-Atroushy A, et al. It is possible to create a vascular access team in a middle resource country? Experience of Hevi Paediatric Teaching Hospital at DUHOK - IRAQ. J Vasc Access. 2021. doi:10.1177/11297298211055402
Burek AG, Parker J, Bentzien R, Talbert L, Havas M, Hanson SJ. The development of a long peripheral catheter program at a large pediatric academic center: a pilot study. Hosp Pediatr. 2020;10:897-901.
Carr A, Green JR, Benish E, et al. Midline venous catheters as an alternative to central line catheter placement: a product evaluation. Br J Nurs. 2021;30:10.
Hodgson KA, Huynh J, Ibrahim LF, et al. The use, appropriateness and outcomes of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy. Arch Dis Child. 2016;101:886-893.
Leick-Rude MK, Haney B. Midline catheter use in the intensive care nursery. Neonatal Netw. 2006;25:189-199.
Pacilli M, Bradshaw CJ, Clarke SA. Use of 8-cm 22G-long peripheral cannulas in pediatric patients. J Vasc Access. 2018;19:496-500.
Paladini A, Chiaretti A, Sellasie KW, Pittiruti M, Vento G. Ultrasound-guided placement of long peripheral cannulas in children over the age of 10 years admitted to the emergency department: a pilot study. BMJ Paediatr Open. 2018;2:000244.
Qian SY, Horn MT, Barnes R, Armstrong D. The use of 8-cm 22G Seldinger catheters for intravenous access in children with cystic fibrosis. J Vasc Access. 2014;15:415-417.
Rajkumar K, Chaudhary N, Tadepalli K. Chemotherapy administration trhough midline catheters in a newly established pediatric oncology setting: an acceptable option to start with [abstarct #557]. SIOP. 2021:518-519.
Ullman AJ, Bernstein SJ, Brown E, et al. The Michigan appropriateness guide for intravenous catheters in pediatrics: miniMAGIC. Pediatrics. 2020;145:S269-S284.
DeVries M, Lee J, Hoffman L. Infection free midline catheter implementation at a community hospital (2 years). Am J Infect Control. 2019;47:1118-1121.
Pathak R, Gangina S, Jairam F, Hinton K. A vascular access and midlines program can decrease hospital-acquired central line-associated bloodstream infections and cost to a community-based hospital. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2018;14:1453-1456.
Chopra V, Kaatz S, Swaminathan L, et al. Variation in use and outcomes related to midline catheters: results from a multicentre pilot study. BMJ Qual. Saf. 2019;28:714-720.
Schults J, Kleidon T, Chopra V, et al. International recommendations for a vascular access minimum dataset: a Delphi consensus-building study. BMJ Qual. Saf. 2021;30:722-730.