The central venous pressure (CVP) is the most commonly used static marker of preload for guiding fluid therapy in critically ill patients, though its usefulness remains controversial. Centrally inserted central catheters (CICCs) are the gold-standard devices for CVP monitoring but peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) may represent a valid alternative. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis with the aim to investigate whether the difference between PICC- and CICC-measured CVP is not significant.
Methods
We searched for clinical studies published in PubMed and EMBASE databases from inception until December 21st 2016. We included studies providing data on paired and simultaneous CVP measurement from PICCs and CICCs. We conducted two analyses on the values of CVP, the first one according to the total number of CVP assessments, the second one considering the number of patients recruited.
Results
Four studies matched the inclusion criteria, but only three of them provided data for the meta-analyses. Both analyses showed non-significant differences between PICC-measured and CICC-measured CVP: 1489 paired simultaneous CVP assessments (MD 0.16, 95%CI −0.14, 0.45, p = 0.30) on a total of 57 patients (MD 0.22, 95%CI −1.46, 1.91, p = 0.80). Both analyses showed no heterogeneity (I2 = 0%).
Conclusions
Available evidence supports that CVP monitoring with PICCs is accurate and reproduces similar values to those obtained from CICCs. The possibility to monitor CVP should not be used among clinical criteria for preferring a CICC over a PICC line.
LampertiMBodenhamARPittirutiMet al.International evidence-based recommendations on ultrasound-guided vascular access.Intensive Care Med. 2012;38(7):1105–1117.
3.
MarikPEBaramMVahidBDoes central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? A systematic review of the literature and the tale of seven mares.Chest. 2008;134(1):172–178.
4.
CecconiMHoferCTeboulJLet al.FENICE Investigators; ESICM Trial Group.Fluid challenges in intensive care: the FENICE study: A global inception cohort study. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41(9):1529–1537.
5.
EisenhauerEDDerveloyRJHastingsPRProspective evaluation of central venous pressure (CVP) catheters in a large city-county hospital.Ann Surg. 1982;196(5):560–564.
6.
EyerSBrummittCCrossleyKSiegelRCerraFCatheter-related sepsis: prospective, randomized study of three methods of long-term catheter maintenance.Crit Care Med. 1990;18(10):1073–1079.
7.
GiuffridaDJBryan-BrownCWLumbPDKwunKBRhoadesHMCentral vs peripheral venous catheters in critically ill patients.Chest. 1986;90(6):806–809.
8.
RichetHHubertBNitembergGet al.Prospective multicenter study of vascular-catheter-related complications and risk factors for positive central-catheter cultures in intensive care unit patients.J Clin Microbiol. 1990;28(11):2520–2525.
9.
LatheyRKJacksonREBodenhamAHarperDPatleVAnaesthetic Audit and Research Matrix of Yorkshire (AARMY). A multicentre snapshot study of the incidence of serious procedural complications secondary to central venous catheterisation.Anaesthesia. 2017;72(3):328–334.
10.
PittirutiMLa GrecaAScoppettuoloGThe electrocardiographic method for positioning the tip of central venous catheters.J Vasc Access. 2011;12(4):280–291.
11.
BlackIHBlosserSAMurrayWBCentral venous pressure measurements: peripherally inserted catheters versus centrally inserted catheters.Crit Care Med. 2000;28(12):3833–3836.
12.
LathamHERawsonSTDwyerTTPatelCCWickJASimpsonSQPeripherally inserted central catheters are equivalent to centrally inserted catheters in intensive care unit patients for central venous pressure monitoring.J Clin Monit Comput. 2012;26(2):85–90.
13.
McLemoreECTessierDJRadyMYet al.Intraoperative peripherally inserted central venous catheter central venous pressure monitoring in abdominal aortic aneurysm reconstruction.Ann Vasc Surg. 2006;20(5):577–581.
14.
YunJYParkSHChoDSJeungHJLeeSASeoSJComparison of the central venous pressure from internal jugular vein and the pressure measured from the peripherally inserted antecubital central catheter (PICCP) in liver transplantation recipients.Korean J Anesthesiol. 2011;61(4):281–287.
15.
LathamHEDwyerTTGreggBLSimpsonSQAn in vitro study comparing a peripherally inserted central catheter to a conventional central venous catheter: no difference in static and dynamic pressure transmission.BMC Anesthesiol. 2010;10(1):18.
16.
LiberatiAAltmanDGTetzlaffJet al.The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):e1–e34.
HigginsJPTGreenSCochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions.Available from http://handbook.cochrane.org. Accessed May 1, 2017.
19.
HozoSPDjulbegovicBHozoIEstimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5(1):13.
20.
HigginsJPThompsonSGDeeksJJAltmanDGMeasuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–560.
21.
RobertoPMadeiraFOliveiraECarreiraCCarreiraMSoaresF[Central venous line placement is not compromised by the choice between different insertion sites.Study performed in cardiovascular surgery patients]. Rev Port Cir Cardiotorac Vasc. 2013;20(1):13–17.
22.
GriffithsVRPhilpotPPeripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs): do they have a role in the care of the critically ill patient?Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2002;18(1):37–47.
23.
CotogniPPittirutiMFocus on peripherally inserted central catheters in critically ill patients.World J Crit Care Med. 2014;3(4):80–94.
24.
PittirutiMBruttiACelentanoDet al.Clinical experience with power-injectable PICCs in intensive care patients.Crit Care. 2012;16(1):R21.
25.
BishopLDoughertyLBodenhamAet al.Guidelines on the insertion and management of central venous access devices in adults.Int J Lab Hematol. 2007;29(4):261–278.
26.
MakiDGKlugerDMCrnichCJThe risk of bloodstream infection in adults with different intravascular devices: a systematic review of 200 published prospective studies.Mayo Clin Proc. 2006;81(9):1159–1171.
27.
PittirutiMHamiltonHBiffiRMacFieJPertkiewiczMESPEN.ESPEN Guidelines on Parenteral Nutrition: central venous catheters (access, care, diagnosis and therapy of complications). Clin Nutr. 2009;28(4):365–377.
28.
ParkKJunHJOhSYSafety, efficacy, and patient-perceived satisfaction of peripherally inserted central catheters in terminally ill cancer patients: a prospective multicenter observational study.Support Care Cancer. 2016;24(12):4987–4992.
29.
DavidsonIJYooMCBiasucciDGet al.Simulation training for vascular access interventions.J Vasc Access. 2010;11(3):181–190.
ElkhunovichMBarrerasJBock PineroVZivNVaiyaniAMailhotTThe use of ultrasound for peripheral IV placement by vascular access team nurses at a tertiary children's hospital.J Vasc Access. 2017;18(1):57–63.
32.
KamperLHaagePOrganisation of a radiological vascular access unit.J Vasc Access. 2015;16(Suppl 9):S24–S28.
33.
ChopraVAnandSHicknerAet al.Risk of venous thromboembolism associated with peripherally inserted central catheters: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Lancet. 2013;382(9889):311–325.
34.
MoureauNSafe patient care when using vascular access devices.Brit J Nurs. 2013;22(2):S14, S16, S18 passim.
35.
PittirutiMEmoliAPortaPMarcheBDeAngelisRScoppettuoloGA prospective, randomized comparison of three different types of valved and non-valved peripherally inserted central catheters.J Vasc Access. 2014;15(6):519–523.
36.
NifongTPMcDevittTJThe effect of catheter to vein ratio on blood flow rates in a simulated model of peripherally inserted central venous catheters.Chest. 2011;140(1):48–53.
