ArticleCardiovascular diagnosis and therapy2025
Extravasation, thrombosis, and infection with vasopressor infusion through peripheral intravenous catheters: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Navigating the veins: A comprehensive review of vasoactive agent infusionWorld journal of critical care medicine · 2026Review
- Intraoperative peripheral intravenous complications in adults: a summary of evidence for prevention and management of infiltration/extravasation.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The safety of administering vasopressors through peripheral venous catheters (PVCs) remains controversial, primarily due to concerns regarding extravasation, thrombosis, and catheter-related infections. This study aimed to systematically summarize the prevalence of these complications through a meta-analysis. Methods: The PubMed, Excerpta Medical Database (Embase), Cochrane Library, Web of Science (WOS), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang (WF), Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), and China Biology Medicine disc (CBMdisc) databases were systematically searched (from database establishment 16 August 2025) to retrieve pertinent articles, and study quality was rated via the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scale and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The data analysis was conducted using the meta package in R, and random/fixed-effects models were applied to combine the complication rates based on heterogeneity. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were also carried out. Results: A total of 19 studies comprising 6,852 patients across 10 counties, including Sweden, the USA, and China, were encompassed in the meta-analysis, with the majority being intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The overall rates of extravasation, thrombosis, and infection were 1.43% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.72-2.32%; I Conclusions: Under standardized procedures, PVCs may be a viable option for vasopressor infusion, particularly MCs, which showed the lowest risk of extravasation. Caution is warranted with PICCs due to the potential risk of thrombosis, while traditional PVCs should be limited to short-term or emergency use. Future well-designed studies with standardized definitions are needed to strengthen the reliability and clinical applicability of the evidence.
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.