Irrintzi Fernández-Aedo PhD, RN, Sendoa Ballesteros-Peña PhD, MPH, RN, Gorka Vallejo-De La Hoz PhD RN, Julia Fernandez-Alonso PhD
{"title":"Vascular complications of intravenous vancomycin: Safety of peripheral, midline and central catheters. A scoping review","authors":"Irrintzi Fernández-Aedo PhD, RN, Sendoa Ballesteros-Peña PhD, MPH, RN, Gorka Vallejo-De La Hoz PhD RN, Julia Fernandez-Alonso PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.enfie.2026.500622","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Vancomycin treats severe infections by resistant bacteria, but its acidity and local toxicity demand careful intravenous administration. Central venous catheters reduce these risks but pose complications. Midline catheters offer a less invasive alternative, though evidence remains limited.</div></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>To map and describe the available clinical evidence on the safety and vascular complications associated with peripheral intravenous administration of vancomycin, compared with other vascular access devices, focusing on the type of complications reported, their diagnostic methods, and the methodological characteristics of the studies.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>A scoping review was conducted following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was performed in Medline (via PubMed), Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and CUIDEN databases to identify studies reporting on intravenous vancomycin administration, catheter type and associated complications.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Four studies met the inclusion criteria—two clinical trials and two cohort studies—with sample sizes ranging from 14 to 1087 participants. All studies reported complications attributed to vancomycin, regardless of catheter type. Two studies reported low rates of certain complications in patients receiving vancomycin through midline catheters, while other studies described complications associated with peripheral administration or recommended central access based on clinical considerations.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The available studies report heterogeneous findings regarding vascular complications associated with different vascular access devices for vancomycin administration. The evidence is limited and methodologically diverse, highlighting important gaps in the literature regarding outcome definitions, diagnostic approaches, and comparative evaluation across catheter types.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":93991,"journal":{"name":"Enfermeria intensiva","volume":"37 4","pages":"Article 500622"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Enfermeria intensiva","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2529984026000406","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction
Vancomycin treats severe infections by resistant bacteria, but its acidity and local toxicity demand careful intravenous administration. Central venous catheters reduce these risks but pose complications. Midline catheters offer a less invasive alternative, though evidence remains limited.
Objectives
To map and describe the available clinical evidence on the safety and vascular complications associated with peripheral intravenous administration of vancomycin, compared with other vascular access devices, focusing on the type of complications reported, their diagnostic methods, and the methodological characteristics of the studies.
Method
A scoping review was conducted following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was performed in Medline (via PubMed), Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and CUIDEN databases to identify studies reporting on intravenous vancomycin administration, catheter type and associated complications.
Results
Four studies met the inclusion criteria—two clinical trials and two cohort studies—with sample sizes ranging from 14 to 1087 participants. All studies reported complications attributed to vancomycin, regardless of catheter type. Two studies reported low rates of certain complications in patients receiving vancomycin through midline catheters, while other studies described complications associated with peripheral administration or recommended central access based on clinical considerations.
Conclusion
The available studies report heterogeneous findings regarding vascular complications associated with different vascular access devices for vancomycin administration. The evidence is limited and methodologically diverse, highlighting important gaps in the literature regarding outcome definitions, diagnostic approaches, and comparative evaluation across catheter types.
万古霉素治疗由耐药菌引起的严重感染,但其酸性和局部毒性需要小心静脉给药。中心静脉导管可降低这些风险,但会引起并发症。中线导管提供了一种侵入性较小的替代方法,尽管证据仍然有限。目的:绘制和描述关于万古霉素外周静脉给药与其他血管通路装置相关的安全性和血管并发症的现有临床证据,重点是报告的并发症类型、诊断方法和研究的方法学特征。方法:根据PRISMA-ScR指南进行范围审查。我们在Medline(通过PubMed)、Web of Science、Cochrane Library、CINAHL和CUIDEN数据库中进行了全面的文献检索,以确定关于静脉注射万古霉素、导管类型和相关并发症的研究。结果:四项研究符合纳入标准,两项临床试验和两项队列研究,样本量从14到1087名参与者不等。所有研究都报道了万古霉素引起的并发症,无论导管类型如何。两项研究报告了通过中线导管接受万古霉素的患者的某些并发症发生率较低,而其他研究描述了与外周给药或基于临床考虑推荐的中心通路相关的并发症。结论:现有的研究报告了与万古霉素不同血管通路装置相关的血管并发症的不同结果。证据有限,方法多样,突出了文献中关于结果定义、诊断方法和跨导管类型比较评估的重要空白。