ArticleTherapeutics and clinical risk management2022
Risk Factors for Midline Catheter Failure: A Secondary Analysis of an Existing Trial.
Article in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective: While midline catheters (MCs) are considered to be a reliable form of vascular access, up to 25% of the placements culminate in failure. We aimed to explore risk factors for MC failure. Methods: We performed an analysis of existing randomized controlled trial data involving a comparison of two midline catheters. The study aimed to assess risk factors related to MC failure, including patient, procedure, catheter, and vein characteristics. Cox regression was used for univariable and multivariable analyses to evaluate the association between characteristics and MC failure. Results: Among 191 patients that were included in this secondary analysis, more patients were female (114/191 [59.7%]) and average age was 60.2 (SD = 16.7) years. Clinical indications for MC placement included antibiotics (60.7%), difficult venous access (32.5%), or both (6.8%). In a univariable Cox regression analysis, the increase in pulse rate (HR 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.04; Conclusion: Elevated pulse rate, decreased oxygen saturation level, temperature ≥38°C, and norepinephrine use were each associated with an increased risk of MC failure. These factors should be considered when selecting the most appropriate vascular access device for individual patients. Additionally, the cephalic vein insertion has the highest risk for MC failure and other access points could be preferentially considered.
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.