ReviewTH open : companion journal to thrombosis and haemostasis2025
Bleeding Risk of Central Venous Catheterization in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in TH open : companion journal to thrombosis and haemostasis, 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.
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Central venous catheter (CVC) insertion is a cornerstone procedure in hospitalized and critically ill adults. However, many patients requiring CVCs have coagulopathy, thrombocytopenia, liver disease, or hematologic malignancies, raising concerns about bleeding risk. The true incidence of hemorrhagic complications and the value of preventive measures in these populations remain uncertain. Objective: The objective of this study is to systematically evaluate the incidence of bleeding related to CVC placement in adults at increased hemorrhagic risk and to assess the effectiveness of periprocedural preventive strategies. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from January 2000 to March 2025. Randomized trials and observational studies involving adults with elevated bleeding risk undergoing CVC placement were included. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment (RoB 2 and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) were performed independently by two reviewers. Certainty of evidence was rated using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation), and random-effects meta-analyses were conducted when appropriate. Results: Forty-one studies encompassing 7,603 patients and 8,796 CVC insertions were analyzed. Major bleeding occurred in 0.57% of procedures and minor bleeding in 8.1%. The pooled incidence of any bleeding across 22 studies was 6.8% (95% confidence interval, 3.7-10.7%). Bleeding was more frequent among patients with hematologic malignancies, severe thrombocytopenia, or critical illness. Ultrasound guidance markedly reduced complications compared with landmark technique. Platelet transfusion was effective only below 30 × 10 Conclusions: CVC placement in adults with coagulopathy or thrombocytopenia is generally safe. Ultrasound guidance, restrictive transfusion thresholds, and thromboelastography-guided assessment enhance procedural safety and reduce unnecessary transfusions.
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.