Comparison of complications and indwelling time of midline catheter at different tip locations: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

This review was performed to determine whether different tip locations of a midline catheter can cause differences in the incidence of complications and the catheter indwelling time. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang were systematically searched. RevMan 5.3 software was used for the meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was evaluated, and the mean differences or odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed statistically significant differences in the complication rates (OR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.34-0.84; p = 0.006) and incidence of catheter-related thrombosis (OR = 0.29; 95% CI = 0.11-0.76; p = 0.01) between midline catheter tip positioning in the subclavian vein and axillary vein. There were no significant differences in the catheter indwelling time or other complications such as phlebitis, catheter-related occlusion, catheter-related infiltration, pain, and catheter dislodgement between midline catheter tip positioning in the subclavian vein and axillary vein. There were statistically significant differences in the complication rates (OR = 0.23; 95% CI = 0.36-0.57; p < 0.001), incidence of catheter-related occlusion (OR = 0.29; 95% CI = 0.10-0.83; p = 0.02), and incidence of catheter-related infiltration (OR = 0.33; 95% CI = 0.17-0.63; p < 0.001) between midline catheter tip positioning in the proximal and distal axillary vein. Placement of the midline catheter tip in the subclavian vein was superior to that in the axillary vein in terms of complication rates and the incidence of catheter-related thrombosis. Whether different midline catheter tip locations lead to differences in the catheter indwelling time or the rates of other complications remains unclear. More high-quality studies incorporating relevant outcomes are needed for confirmation.