ArticlePediatric quality & safety
Prediction of Nonelective Central Venous Catheter Removal in Medically Complex Neonates.
Article in Pediatric quality & safety. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inter-center variation in non-elective removal of central catheters amongst level 4 NICUs.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026Article
- Umbilically and Peripherally Inserted Thin Central Venous Catheters Have Similar Risks of Complications in Very Low-Birth-Weight Infants.Clinical pediatrics · 2023Article
- Central-line-associated bloodstream infections and central-line-associated non-CLABSI complications among pediatric oncology patients.Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 2023Article
- Effect of implementing an Epicutaneo-Caval Catheter team in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.The journal of vascular access · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCentral venous catheters (CVCs) are essential to neonatal care but associated with significant morbidity. Nonelective CVC removal (NER) is an inadequately studied outcome associated with increased morbidity, infant and family stress, and cost. This study describes prevalence and predictors of NER in infants admitted to a level IV neonatal intensive care unit and NER variation between peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), cutdown PICCs, and surgical CVCs.
methodsIn this study, we include patient and catheter data for infants admitted to a level IV neonatal intensive care unit (2010-2015). Demographic and clinical characteristics were compared using 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Kruskal-Wallis, and chi-square tests for continuous, non-normally distributed continuous, and categorical variables, respectively. The association between NER due to complication and infant and catheter characteristics was assessed using generalized linear mixed models.
resultsPatient and catheter characteristics vary significantly by catheter type. The overall rate of NER is 15% (17% PICCs, 13% cutdown PICCs, and 19% surgical CVCs). The most common indications for NER are catheter breakage, blood stream infection(BSI)/central line-associated blood stream infection(CLABSI), catheter malposition, mechanical obstruction, and extravasation. Birth weight, patient diagnosis, catheter dwell time, and concurrent catheters are associated with increased odds of NER.
conclusionsPatient risk factors and potentially modifiable catheter characteristics, including catheter dwell time and concurrent catheters, are associated with increased NER. As NER is associated with a broad spectrum of adverse outcomes, we propose a quality improvement strategy to risk stratify patients and reduce exposure to high-risk, modifiable catheter characteristics.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.