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
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“We identified direct evidence from 14 RCTs (n = 4,499 patients) that assessed use of procalcitonin to guide antimicrobial treatment duration in patients with sepsis (two trials included critically ill patients in general) (308-321).”
From Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. (2021) · cites this paper as [309]
In the citing paper
“A small study (n = 263) randomly allocated patients to receive peripheral vascular access or a central access [386]. The need for vasopressor was the indication for venous access in 70% of the patients. The incidence of major catheter-related complications was higher in those randomised to peripheral venous lines with no significant difference in the incidence of minor catheter-related complicatio”
From Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021 (2021) · cites this paper as [386]
Citations
Cites
(2000) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200005043421801 · Cited by 12,941
Le Gall, J.-R. (1993) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.270.24.2957 · Cited by 7,773
Efficacy and Safety of Recombinant Human Activated Protein C for Severe Sepsis
Bernard, G. R., Vincent, J., Laterre, P., LaRosa, S. P., Dhainaut, J.-F., Lopez-Rodriguez, A., Steingrub, J. S., Garber, G. E., Helterbrand, J. D., Ely, E. W., et al. (2001) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200103083441001 · Cited by 6,124
Kumar, A., Roberts, D., Wood, K. E., Light, B., Parrillo, J. E., Sharma, S., Suppes, R., Feinstein, D., Zanotti, S., Taiberg, L., et al. (2006) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/01.ccm.0000217961.75225.e9 · Cited by 6,109
Guidelines for the Prevention of Intravascular Catheter-related Infections
O’Grady, N. P., Alexander, M., Burns, L. A., Dellinger, E. P., Garland, J. L., Heard, S. O., Lipsett, P. A., Masur, H., Mermel, L. A., Pearson, M. L., et al. (2011) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/cir257 · Cited by 4,727
An Intervention to Decrease Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections in the ICU
Pronovost, P., Needham, D., Berenholtz, S., Sinopoli, D., Chu, H., Cosgrove, S., Sexton, B., Hyzy, R., Welsh, R., Roth, G., et al. (2006) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa061115 · Cited by 4,387
The Prevalence of Nosocomial Infection in Intensive Care Units in Europe
Vincent, J. (1995) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.274.8.639 · Cited by 2,592
Trotti, A., Colevas, A. D., Setser, A., Rusch, V. W., Jaques, D. P., Budach, V., Langer, C. J., Murphy, B. A., Cumberlin, R. L., & Coleman, C. N. (2003) · Seminars in Radiation Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1053-4296(03)00031-6 · Cited by 2,569
Neuromuscular Blockers in Early Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
Papazian, L., Forel, J.-M., Gacouin, A., Penot-Ragon, C., Perrin, G., Loundou, A., Jaber, S., Arnal, J.-M., Perez, D., Seghboyan, J.-M., et al. (2010) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1005372 · Cited by 2,432
Preventing Complications of Central Venous Catheterization
McGee, D. C., & Gould, M. K. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra011883 · Cited by 2,297
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Vincent, 1995, JAMA, 274, 639, 10.1001/jama.1995.03530080055041 · DOI
- OGrady, 2002, MMWR Recomm Rep, 51, 1
- Le Gall, 1993, JAMA, 270, 2957, 10.1001/jama.1993.03510240069035 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021
Evans, L., Rhodes, A., Alhazzani, W., Antonelli, M., Coopersmith, C. M., French, C., Machado, F. R., Mcintyre, L., Ostermann, M., Prescott, H. C., et al. (2021) · Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1007/s00134-021-06506-y · Cited by 5,082
Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021.
Evans, L., Rhodes, A., Alhazzani, W., Antonelli, M., Coopersmith, C. M., French, C., Machado, F. R., Mcintyre, L., Ostermann, M., Prescott, H. C., et al. (2021) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000005337 · Cited by 2,935
Cecconi, M., Backer, D. D., Antonelli, M. M., Beale, R. J., Bakker, J., Hofer, C. K., Jaeschke, R., Mebazaa, A., Pinsky, M. R., Teboul, J., et al. (2014) · Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1007/s00134-014-3525-z · Cited by 1,849
Chioncel, O. D., Parissis, J., Mebazaa, A., Thiele, H., Desch, S., Bauersachs, J. K., Harjola, V., Antohi, E., Arrigo, M., Gal, T. B., et al. (2020) · European Journal of Heart Failure · doi:10.1002/ejhf.1922 · Cited by 505
Loubani, O. M., & Green, R. S. (2015) · Journal of Critical Care · doi:10.1016/j.jcrc.2015.01.014 · Cited by 235
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)
- Venue
- Critical Care Medicine
- Published
- 2013-09
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 2108-2115
- ISSN
- 0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
- 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
