A meta‐analysis of the comparison of phlebitis between midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters in infusion therapy
Huapeng Lu, Qinling Yang, Boyan Tian, Yi Lyu, Xuemei Zheng, Xia Xin
Abstract
AIMS: To compare the risk of phlebitis between midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters in infusion therapy with a meta-analysis. DESIGN: This was a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, CNKI, WanFang, VIP and SinoMed were searched from inception to May 2020. REVIEW METHODS: All studies comparing the risk of phlebitis between midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters were included. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, two authors independently assessed the literature and extracted the data. Meta-analyses were conducted to generate estimates of phlebitis risk in patients with midline catheters verse peripherally inserted central catheters, and publication bias was evaluated with RevMan 5.3. RESULTS: A total of seven studies were collected, involving 1377 participants. The incidence of phlebitis with midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters was 1.52% and 3.41%. Meta-analysis showed that the incidence of phlebitis has no significant difference between midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters. The sensitivity analysis shows that the results from this meta-analysis are fair in overall studies. All studies have no significant publication bias. CONCLUSION: This study provides the first systematic assessment of the risk of phlebitis between midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters. The incidence of phlebitis has no significant difference between them. There are many factors to consider when choosing vascular access devices.