ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Since the first description of the central venous catheter (CVC) in 1952, it has been used for the rapid administration of drugs, chemotherapy, as a route for nutritional support, blood components, monitoring patients, or combinations of these. When CVC is used in the traditional routes (eg, subclavian, jugular, and femoral veins), the complication rates range up to 15% and are mainly due to mechanical dysfunction, infection, and thrombosis. The peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) is an alternative option for CVC access. However, the clinical evidence for PICC compared to CVC is still under discussion. In this setting, this systematic review (SR) aims to assess the effects of PICC compared to CVC for intravenous access. METHODS: We will perform a comprehensive search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which compare PICC and traditional CVC for intravenous access. The search strategy will consider free text terms and controlled vocabulary (eg, MeSH and Entree) related to "peripherally inserted central venous catheter," "central venous access," "central venous catheter," "catheterisation, peripheral," "vascular access devices," "infusions, intravenous," "administration, intravenous," and "injections, intravenous." Searches will be carried out in these databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE (via Elsevier), Cochrane CENTRAL (via Wiley), IBECS, and LILACS (both via Virtual Health Library). We will consider catheter-related deep venous thrombosis and overall successful insertion rates as primary outcomes and haematoma, venous thromboembolism, reintervention derived from catheter dysfunction, catheter-related infections, and quality of life as secondary outcomes. Where results are not appropriate for a meta-analysis using RevMan 5 software (eg, if the data have considerable heterogeneity and are drawn from different comparisons), a descriptive analysis will be performed. RESULTS: Our SR will be conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the findings will be reported in compliance with PRISMA. CONCLUSION: Our study will provide evidence for the effects of PICC versus CVC for venous access. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This SR has obtained formal ethical approval and was prospectively registered in Open Science Framework. The findings of this SR will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications or conference presentations. REGISTRATION:: osf.io/xvhzf. ETHICAL APPROVAL: 69003717.2.0000.5505.
Subject(s)
Catheterization, Central Venous , Catheterization, Peripheral , Central Venous Catheters , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Systematic Reviews as TopicABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the outcomes of primary bypass graft surgery (BGS) compared to BGS after failed angioplasty (PTA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 2007 and January 2014, we performed 136 BGSs exclusively for the treatment of critical limb ischaemia. Two cohorts were identified: 1) primary BGS (n = 102; group I), and 2) BGS after prior PTA (n = 34; group II). Data were analysed retrospectively and the primary endpoints were the rates of secondary patency, amputation-free survival, freedom from major adverse outcomes (graft occlusion, amputation, or death), and overall survival, which were assessed with the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Both groups were comparable with a predominance of Rutherford's category 5 ischaemic lesions (73.3 %). Most patients had extensive TASC D athe-rosclerotic disease (83.6 %), and the main conduit was the greater saphenous vein (58.1 %). The mean follow-up time was 36.2 months. The 3-year secondary patency rates were better for group I (64.3 % vs 49.6 %; P = 0.04). During the same period, the amputation-free survival rates were similar between the groups (77.4 % vs 74.5 %; P = 0.59). For multivariate Cox regression analysis, BGS after prior PTA was the only factor associated with re-intervention for limb salvage (hazard ratio = 2.39; CI 95 % = 1.19 - 4.80; P = 0.02). At the 3-year point, there were no differences in the overall survival rates (72.6 % vs 70 %; P = 0.97), but the proportion of patients without adverse outcomes was higher in group I (37.3 % vs 13.4 %; P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Although secondary patency was better after primary BGS, the amputation-free and overall survival rates support the use of BGS after prior PTA.
