ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2026
Brachiocephalic centrally inserted central catheters in infants born < 32 weeks gestation and/or < 1500 g: a prospective comparison with epicutaneo-caval catheters.
Article in European journal of pediatrics, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ultrasound-guided centrally inserted central catheters (CICCs) via the supraclavicular brachiocephalic vein have emerged as an alternative to epicutaneo-caval catheters (ECCs) and may offer practical advantages, including vasoactive drug administration, blood transfusion, and repeated blood sampling through a stable central venous access. We compared CICCs and ECCs regarding procedural feasibility and catheter-related outcomes in infants born < 32 weeks gestation and/or weighing < 1500 g. Sixty-six infants born before 32 weeks gestation and/or weighing < 1500 g who underwent CICC or ECC insertion according to predefined local practice were prospectively included, with one index catheter procedure analyzed per infant. Procedure-related adverse events occurring during or within 24 h after insertion were categorized as major mechanical complications or physiological adverse events. Secondary outcomes included procedural feasibility, catheter dwell time, and catheter-related complications. Sixty-six infants were analyzed (24 CICC and 42 ECC). Infants receiving CICCs were more premature, had lower birth weight, and more frequently required mechanical ventilation and vasoactive support. No major mechanical complication occurred in either group; physiological adverse events occurred in 2/24 (8.3%) CICC and 3/42 (7.1%) ECC procedures. CICCs remained in place significantly longer than ECCs. Confirmed central line-associated bloodstream infection occurred in 3/24 (12.5%) CICCs and 6/42 (14.3%) ECCs, while other catheter-related complications occurred in 2/24 (8.3%) and 2/42 (4.8%), respectively.
conclusionDespite preferential use in the most immature and critically ill infants, CICC placement was feasible and provided prolonged central venous access. CICCs may represent a complementary vascular option for selected preterm infants with complex intravenous therapy requirements. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Epicutaneo-caval catheters (ECCs) are commonly used for prolonged central venous access in neonatal intensive care but may have limitations in critically ill preterm infants requiring complex intravenous therapies. • Evidence comparing ECCs and centrally inserted central catheters (CICCs) remains limited. WHAT IS NEW: • CICCs were successfully used in the most immature and critically ill preterm infants. • CICCs provided prolonged central venous access in this prospective cohort, with few observed catheter-related complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42747559What 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.