Observational studyBMJ open2022
Peripherally inserted central catheters versus non-tunnelled ultrasound-guided central venous catheters in newborns: a retrospective observational study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review of ultrasound-guided central venous catheter placement-related complications in neonates and infants aged <12 months.The Journal of international medical research · 2024Pooled it
- Therapeutic Effect of Ultrasound-Guided Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Combined with Predictive Nursing in Patients with Large-Area Severe Burns.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Trial
- Octyl-butyl cyanoacrylate glue versus splint for stabilising short peripheral intravenous catheters in neonates: a retrospective cohort study.BMJ paediatrics open · 2026Article
- Neonatal epicutaneo-cava catheter-related thrombosis: a comprehensive overview.Thrombosis journal · 2026Review
- Observational
- Insertion technologies for neonatal venous access: a scoping review.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026Review
- The applications, complications, and management of neonatal peripherally inserted central catheters (n-PICCs): a narrative review.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Review
- The impact of central line-specific dwell-times for neonatal central line associated bloodstream infections.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2025Article
- Use of centrally and femorally inserted central venous catheters in neonates: a nationwide survey of practices in French neonatal intensive care units.European journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
- The Modern Role of Neonatal PICCs Subspecialty.Nursing in critical care · 2025Review
- Comparing conventional and modified Seldinger techniques using a micro-insertion kit for PICC placement in neonates: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Article
- Central Lines and Their Complications in Neonates: A Case Report and Literature Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Does the antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central catheter decrease the CLABSI rate in neonates? Results from a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe aimed to compare the success rates and other catheter-related parameters between peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and non-tunnelled ultrasound-guided central venous catheters (USG-CVCs) including femoral, jugular, brachiocephalic and subclavian lines.
designThis was a retrospective observational study.
settingThe study was performed in a level III neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) in Qatar, as a single-site study.
participantsThis study included 1333 neonates who required CVC insertion in the NICU from January 2016 to December 2018. Of those, we had 1264 PICCs and 69 non-tunnelled USG-CVCs. OUTCOME MEASURES: The success rate and other catheter-related complications in the two groups.
resultsThe overall success rate was 88.4% in the USG-CVCs (61/69) compared with 90% in the PICCs (1137/1264) group (p=0.68). However, the first prick success rate was 69.4% in USG-CVCs (43/69) compared with 63.6% in the PICCs (796/1264) group. Leaking and central line-associated blood stream infection (CLABSI) were significantly higher in the USG-CVC group compared with the PICC group (leaking 16.4% vs 2.3%, p=0.0001) (CLABSI 8.2% vs 3.1%, p=0.03). CLABSI rates in the PICC group were 1.75 per 1000 catheter days in 2016 and 3.3 in 2017 compared with 6.91 in 2016 (p=0.0001) and 14.32 in 2017 (p=0.0001) for the USG-CVCs. USG-CVCs had to be removed due to catheter-related complications in 52.5% of the cases compared with 29.9% in PICCs, p=0.001. In 2018, we did not have any non-tunnelled USG-CVCs insertions in our NICU.
conclusionsThe overall complication rate, CLABSI and leaking are significantly higher in non-tunnelled USG-CVCs compared with the PICCs. However, randomised controlled trials with larger sample sizes are desired. Proper central venous device selection and timing, early PICC insertion and early removal approach, dedicated vascular access team development, proper central venous line maintenance, central line simulation workshops and US-guided insertions are crucial elements for patient safety in NICU.
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.