Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 326

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Central venous catheter replacement strategies: A systematic review of the literature

Cook, Deborah, Randolph, Adrienne, Kernerman, Phillip, Cupido, Cynthia, King, Derek, Soukup, Clara, Brun-Buisson, Christian·1997·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of guidewire exchange and new-site replacement strategies on the frequency of catheter colonization and infection, catheter-related bacteremia, and mechanical complications in critically ill patients. DATA SOURCES: We searched for published and unpublished research by means of MEDLINE and Science Citation Index, manual searching of Index Medicus, citation review of relevant primary and review articles, review of personal files, and contact with primary investigators. STUDY SELECTION: From a pool of 151 randomized, controlled trials on central venous catheter management, we identified 12 relevant randomized trials of catheter replacement over a guidewire or at a new site. DATA EXTRACTION: In duplicate and independently, we abstracted data on the population, intervention, outcome, and methodologic quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: As compared with new-site replacement, guidewire exchange is associated with a trend toward a higher rate of catheter colonization (relative risk 1.26, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.84), regardless of whether patients had a suspected infection. Guidewire exchange is also associated with trends toward a higher rate of catheter exit-site infection (relative risk 1.52, 95% confidence interval 0.34 to 6.73) and catheter-related bacteremia (relative risk 1.72, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 3.33). However, guidewire exchange is associated with fewer mechanical complications (relative risk 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.12 to 1.91) relative to new-site replacement. Exchanging catheters over guidewires or at new sites every 3 days is not beneficial in reducing infections, compared with catheter replacement on an as-needed basis. CONCLUSIONS: Guidewire exchange of central venous catheters may be associated with a greater risk of catheter-related infection but fewer mechanical complications than new-site replacement. More studies on scheduled vs. as-needed replacement strategies using both techniques are warranted. If guidewire exchange is used, meticulous aseptic technique is necessary.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00003246-199708000-00033

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 23 references

Cited by

See all 326

Metadata

Authors
Cook, D., Randolph, A., Kernerman, P., Cupido, C., King, D., Soukup, C., & Brun-Buisson, C.
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
1997-08
Volume
25
Issue
8
Pages
1417-1424
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2046364115
Cited by
326
References
23
FWCI
16.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Central venous catheter replacement strategies: A systematic review of the literature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00003246-199708000-00033
The paper
Cook, D., Randolph, A., Kernerman, P., Cupido, C., King, D., Soukup, C., & Brun-Buisson, C. (1997). Central venous catheter replacement strategies: A systematic review of the literature. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-199708000-00033

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.