1. Relationship between indwelling site and peripheral venous catheter‐related complications in adult hospitalized patients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis.
- Author
-
Fan, Xiao‐wen, Xu, Lei, Wei, Wen‐Shi, Chen, Ya‐Mei, and Yang, Yi‐Qun
- Subjects
FOREARM ,ONLINE information services ,MEDICAL databases ,CINAHL database ,PERIPHERAL central venous catheterization ,META-analysis ,MEDICAL information storage & retrieval systems ,SYSTEMATIC reviews ,DISEASE incidence ,CATHETERIZATION complications ,HAND ,DESCRIPTIVE statistics ,RESEARCH funding ,LUMBAR vertebrae ,MEDLINE ,ADULTS - Abstract
Aims and objectives: This systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to compare the incidence of PVC‐related complications between catheterisation in the forearm and back of the hand in adult patients. Background: A peripheral intravenous catheter (PVC) is often inserted as part of care during patients' hospitalisation. The catheter is typically inserted in the forearm or at the back of the hand in usual practice. Studies have not yet reached a consensus on the optimal insertion site in any clinical setting. Design: We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis based on PRISMA guidelines. Methods: We searched the following electronic databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and CINAHL. Randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case–control studies and cross‐sectional studies from inception to July 2021 reporting the incidence of PVC‐related complications at the forearm and back of the hand were included. Fixed‐effects models and random‐effects models were used to derive the pooled risk ratios. Results: Twenty‐four studies involving 16562 PVCs met our inclusion criteria. The meta‐analysis showed that compared with PVC placement in the back of the hand, placement in the forearm was associated with a higher incidence of total complications and infiltration/extravasation. However, the differences between the PVC indwelling sites were not significant (total complications: P = 0.43; phlebitis: P = 0.35; infiltration/extravasation: P = 0.51). Both incidence of total complications and infiltration/extravasation analyses showed high heterogeneity (total complications: I2 = 60%; infiltration/extravasation: I2 = 58%). Conclusion: Available evidence suggests that there is no significant difference between PVC placement in the forearm and at the back of the hand in terms of the incidence of complications, thus making both approaches suitable. Relevance to clinical practice: For patients who need indwelling PVC, medical staff can choose the best indwelling site, and both forearm and back of the hand are suitable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF