Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39563416›Full record

SynthesisCritical care (London, England)2024

Central venous catheter-related infections: a systematic review, meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis and meta-regression comparing ultrasound guidance and landmark technique for insertion.

Nicolas Boulet, Joris Pensier, Bob-Valéry Occean, Pascale Fabbro Peray, Olivier Mimoz, Claire M Rickard, Niccolò Buetti, Jean-Yves Lefrant, Laurent Muller, Claire Roger

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Critical care (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Nicolas BouletUR-UM103 IMAGINE, Univ Montpellier, Division of Anesthesia Critical Care, Pain and Emergency Medicine, Nîmes University Hospital, Montpellier, France. nicolas.boulet@chu-nimes.fr.
Joris PensierAnesthesiology and Intensive Care; Anesthesia and Critical Care Department B, Saint Eloi Teaching Hospital, PhyMedExp, University of Montpellier, INSERM U1046, 1, Montpellier, France.
Bob-Valéry OcceanDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, Public Health and Innovation in Methodology, CHU Nimes, Univ Montpellier, Nimes, France.
Pascale Fabbro PerayDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, Public Health and Innovation in Methodology, CHU Nimes, Univ Montpellier, Nimes, France.
Olivier MimozINSERM U1070, Université de Poitiers, and Service des Urgences Adultes & SAMU 86, CHU de Poitiers, Poitiers, France.
Claire M RickardMetro North Health and The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Niccolò BuettiInfection Control Program and WHO Collaborating Centre, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Jean-Yves LefrantUR-UM103 IMAGINE, Univ Montpellier, Division of Anesthesia Critical Care, Pain and Emergency Medicine, Nîmes University Hospital, Montpellier, France.
Laurent MullerUR-UM103 IMAGINE, Univ Montpellier, Division of Anesthesia Critical Care, Pain and Emergency Medicine, Nîmes University Hospital, Montpellier, France.
Claire RogerUR-UM103 IMAGINE, Univ Montpellier, Division of Anesthesia Critical Care, Pain and Emergency Medicine, Nîmes University Hospital, Montpellier, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuring central venous catheterization (CVC), ultrasound (US) guidance has been shown to reduce mechanical complications and increase success rates compared to the anatomical landmark (AL) technique. However, the impact of US guidance on catheter-related infections remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the risk of catheter-related infection with US-guided CVC versus AL technique.

methodsA systematic search on MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science databases was conducted until July 31, 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of intervention (NRSI) comparing US-guided versus AL-guided CVC placement were included. The primary outcome was a composite outcome including all types of catheter-related infection: catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs), central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs), catheter colonization, or any other type of reported infection. The secondary outcomes included individual infection types and mortality at day-28. Subgroup analyses based on study type and operator experience were also performed.

resultsPooling twelve studies (8 RCTs and 4 NRSI), with a total of 5,092 CVC procedures (2072 US-guided and 3020 AL-guided), US-guided CVC was associated with a significant reduction in catheter-related infections compared with the AL technique (risk ratio (RR) = 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53-0.88). In the RCT subgroup, the pooled RR was 0.65 (95% CI 0.49-0.87). This effect was more pronounced in procedures performed by experienced operators (RR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.41-0.89). In inexperienced operators, the infection risk reduction was not statistically significant. The pooled analysis of CRBSIs and CLABSIs also favored US guidance (RR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.48-0.87).

conclusionUS-guided CVC placement significantly reduces the risk of catheter-related infections compared to the AL technique, particularly when performed by experienced operators. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42022350884. Registered 13 August 2022.

Indexed as

Catheterization, Central VenousCatheter-Related InfectionsUltrasonography, InterventionalAnatomic LandmarksCentral Venous CathetersHumansCatheter-related bloodstream infectionCentral venous catheterizationMeta-analysisUltrasound guidance

Identifiers

PMID39563416
PMCPMC11577744

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.