ArticleThe journal of vascular access2021
Effect of implementing an Epicutaneo-Caval Catheter team in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.
Article in The journal of vascular access, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevention of complications related to peripherally inserted central catheter insertion techniques in newborns: systematic review and network meta-analysis.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2024Pooled it
- Brachiocephalic centrally inserted central catheters in infants born < 32 weeks gestation and/or < 1500 g: a prospective comparison with epicutaneo-caval catheters.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- On the usage of artificial intelligence for identifying main attributes and predicting neonatal sepsis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Enhancing neonatal vascular access: proposing a patient-centered framework based on 7-Rights.Pediatric research · 2026Article
- The applications, complications, and management of neonatal peripherally inserted central catheters (n-PICCs): a narrative review.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Review
- Short versus long peripheral intravenous catheters in neonates: a retrospective cohort study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Case Report: Uncommon complications of central catheters in newborns: two cases of parenteral nutrition extravasation.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- Central venous catheter insertion profile and complications among neonates in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2024Article
- The effects of maternal voice on pain during placement of peripherally inserted central catheter in neonates.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Comparing conventional and modified Seldinger techniques using a micro-insertion kit for PICC placement in neonates: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Article
- Closed intravenous systems for central vascular access: A difference maker for CLABSI rates in neonates?The journal of vascular access · 2023Observational
- Safe and effective removal of cyanoacrylate vascular access catheter securement adhesive in neonates.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2023Article
- Observational
- Does the antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central catheter decrease the CLABSI rate in neonates? Results from a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
- The ABBA project (Assess Better Before Access): A retrospective cohort study of neonatal intravascular device outcomes.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
- Neonatal Simulation Program: A 5 Years Educational Journey From Qatar.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
- Analysis of the Effect of Intensive Care Based on Lean Nursing Intervention.Journal of healthcare engineering · 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
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUntil the 1980s, central vascular access in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit was predominantly delivered by umbilical catheters and only and if needed by surgical cutdowns or subclavian vein catheterization through blind percutaneous venipuncture. In the early 1980s, epicutaneo-caval catheters were successfully introduced.
methodsIn our Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, a dedicated team to insert epicutaneo-caval catheters was formally established in January 2017, including 12 neonatologists and 1 neonatal nurse practitioner. A before- versus after-intervention study was designed to determine whether the establishment of the epicutaneo-caval catheter insertion team is associated with increased success rates and a decreased risk of catheter-related complications. Success rates and other catheter-related parameters were traced from 2016 onward. Collected data were analyzed for three consecutive years: 2016, 2017, and 2018.
resultsThe epicutaneo-caval catheter team inserted 1336 catheters over 3 years. Both first prick (from 57.7% to 66.9%; p = 0.023) and overall success (from 81.7% to 97.6%; p < 0.0001) rates significantly improved. In 2018, the number of tunneled or surgically inserted central venous catheters came down to zero (p < 0.0001). Overall catheter-related complications were significantly lower following the epicutaneo-caval catheter team's establishment (p < 0.0001) while there was no significant decrease noted (p = 0.978) in central line-associated bacterial stream infection rates.
conclusionA dedicated epicutaneo-caval catheter team is a promising intervention to increase success rates and significantly decrease catheter-related complications in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Standardizing epicutaneo-caval catheter placement is important; however, standardizing catheter maintenance seems essential to the improvement of central line-associated bacterial stream infection rates.
Indexed as
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.