CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 107Central Venous Catheters and HemodialysisClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Central or Peripheral Catheters for Initial Venous Access of ICU Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Ricard, Jean-Damien, Salomon, Laurence, Boyer, Alexandre, Thiery, Guillaume, Meybeck, Agnes, Roy, Carine, Pasquet, Blandine, Le Mière, Eric, Dreyfuss, Didier·2013·Critical Care Medicine
DOI 10.1097/ccm.0b013e31828a42c5
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The vast majority of ICU patients require some form of venous access. There are no evidenced-based guidelines concerning the use of either central or peripheral venous catheters, despite very different complications. It remains unknown which to insert in ICU patients. We investigated the rate of catheter-related insertion or maintenance complications in two strategies: one favoring the central venous catheters and the other peripheral venous catheters. DESIGN: Multicenter, controlled, parallel-group, open-label randomized trial. SETTING: Three French ICUs. PATIENTS: Adult ICU patients with equal central or peripheral venous access requirement. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to receive central venous catheters or peripheral venous catheters as initial venous access. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The primary endpoint was the rate of major catheter-related complications within 28 days. Secondary endpoints were the rate of minor catheter-related complications and a composite score-assessing staff utilization and time spent to manage catheter insertions. Analysis was intention to treat. We randomly assigned 135 patients to receive a central venous catheter and 128 patients to receive a peripheral venous catheter. Major catheter-related complications were greater in the peripheral venous catheter than in the central venous catheter group (133 vs 87, respectively, p=0.02) although none of those was life threatening. Minor catheter-related complications were 201 with central venous catheters and 248 with peripheral venous catheters (p=0.06). 46% (60/128) patients were managed throughout their ICU stay with peripheral venous catheters only. There were significantly more peripheral venous catheter-related complications per patient in patients managed solely with peripheral venous catheter than in patients that received peripheral venous catheter and at least one central venous catheter: 1.92 (121/63) versus 1.13 (226/200), p<0.005. There was no difference in central venous catheter-related complications per patient between patients initially randomized to peripheral venous catheters but subsequently crossed-over to central venous catheter and patients randomized to the central venous catheter group. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival probability did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSION: In ICU patients with equal central or peripheral venous access requirement, central venous catheters should preferably be inserted: a strategy associated with less major complications.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ccm.0b013e31828a42c5

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 35 references

2 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Vincent, 1995, JAMA, 274, 639, 10.1001/jama.1995.03530080055041 · DOI
  2. OGrady, 2002, MMWR Recomm Rep, 51, 1
  3. Le Gall, 1993, JAMA, 270, 2957, 10.1001/jama.1993.03510240069035 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Ricard, J.-D., Salomon, L., Boyer, A., Thiery, G., Meybeck, A., Roy, C., Pasquet, B., Le Mière, E., & Dreyfuss, D.
Affiliations
  • Hôpital Louis-Mourier (FR)
  • Hôpital Pellegrin (FR)
  • Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris (FR)
ORCID
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2013-09
Volume
41
Issue
9
Pages
2108-2115
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/ccm.0b013e31828a42c5
OpenAlex
W2031608109
Cited by
104
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1
FWCI
8.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Critical Care Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Central Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Keywords
central venous catheters, peripheral intravenous catheters, catheter-related complications, intensive care unit patients, catheter insertion and maintenance, catheter-related infection
MeSH terms
Aged, Catheterization, Central Venous, Catheterization, Peripheral, Cross Infection, Female, France, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Quality of Health Care, Confidence Intervals, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Cross-Over Studies

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