ArticleNutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition2025
Central line-associated bloodstream infections and complications in adult home parenteral nutrition: Observations from a quality improvement initiative.
Article in Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Central line-associated bloodstream infections and complications in adult home parenteral nutrition: Observations from a quality improvement initiative.Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2025Article
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
The literature is inconsistent regarding differences in infection risk between central venous catheter types used for home parenteral nutrition (HPN). Our goal was to determine if significant differences exist in rates of infection and other complications between peripherally inserted central catheters, tunneled central venous catheters, and implanted ports, as well as between single and multiple lumen catheters used for HPN. Data were collected for 141 central venous catheters placed in 89 adults receiving HPN provided by Continuum home health company affiliated with University of Virginia health system. The catheters were 63% peripherally inserted, 27% tunneled, and 10% implanted ports, with 25,273 total catheter days and 15,474 HPN days. Central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates were 0.91 episodes per 1000 total catheter days overall, 1.91 for peripherally inserted, 0.63 for tunneled, and zero for ports. CLABSI rates per 1000 HPN days were 1.49 overall, 2.61 for peripherally inserted, and 0.76 for tunneled catheters. CLABSI rates were significantly greater for peripherally inserted than for tunneled catheters per total (P = 0.023) and per HPN (P = 0.011) catheter days. CLABSI rates were greater, but not significantly so, for multiple than for single lumen catheters. The rate of noninfectious complications was not significantly different between tunneled and peripherally inserted central catheters and was zero for ports. HPN CLABSI rates were significantly lower with implanted ports and tunneled central venous catheters as compared with peripherally inserted central catheters.
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.