The risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection
with femoral venous catheters as compared to subclavian and internal jugular
venous catheters: a systematic review of the literature and
meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND:
Catheter-related bloodstream infections are an important cause
of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. Current guidelines
recommend that femoral venous access should be avoided to reduce this
complication (1A recommendation). However, the risk of catheter-related
bloodstream infections from femoral as compared to subclavian and internal
jugular venous catheterization has not been systematically reviewed.
OBJECTIVE:
A systematic review of the literature to determine the risk of
catheter-related bloodstream infections related to nontunneled central venous
catheters inserted at the femoral site as compared to subclavian and internal
jugular placement.
STUDY SELECTION:
Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies that reported
the frequency of catheter-related bloodstream infections (infections per 1,000
catheter days) in patients with nontunneled central venous catheters placed in
the femoral site as compared to subclavian or internal jugular placement.
DATA SYNTHESIS:
Two randomized controlled trials (1006 catheters) and 8 cohort
(16,370 catheters) studies met the inclusion criteria for this systematic
review. Three thousand two hundred thirty catheters were placed in the
subclavian vein, 10,958 in the internal jugular and 3,188 in the femoral vein
for a total of 113,652 catheter days. The average catheter-related bloodstream
infections density was 2.5 per 1,000 catheter days (range 0.6-7.2). There was no significant difference in the
risk of catheter-related bloodstream infections between the femoral and
subclavian/internal jugular sites in the two randomized controlled trials
(i.e., no level 1A evidence). There was no significant difference in the risk of
catheter-related bloodstream infections between the femoral and subclavian
sites. The internal jugular site was associated with a significantly lower risk
of catheter-related bloodstream infections compared to the femoral site (risk
ratio 1.90; 95% confidence interval 1.21-2.97, p=.005, I²=35%). This difference
was explained by two of the studies that were statistical outliers. When these
two studies were removed from the analysis there was no significant difference
in the risk of catheter-related bloodstream infections between the femoral and
internal jugular sites (risk ratio 1.35; 95% confidence interval 0.84-2.19,
p=0.2, I=0%). Meta-regression demonstrated a significant interaction between the
risk of infection and the year of publication (p=.01), with the femoral site
demonstrating a higher risk of infection in the earlier studies. There was no
significant difference in the risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection
between the subclavian and internal jugular sites. The risk of deep venous
thrombosis was assessed in the two randomized controlled trials. A meta-analysis
of this data demonstrates that there was no difference in the risk of deep
venous thrombosis when the femoral site was compared to the subclavian and
internal jugular sites combined. There was, however, significant heterogeneity
between studies.
CONCLUSIONS:
Although earlier studies showed a lower risk of catheter-related
bloodstream infections when the internal jugular was compared to the femoral
site, recent studies show no difference
in the rate of catheter-related bloodstream infections between the three
sites.
Reference:
Marik PE, Flemmer M Harrison W: The risk of catheter-related
bloodstream infection with femoral venous catheters as compared to subclavian
and internal jugular venous catheters: a systematic review of the literature and
meta-analysis. - Crit Care Med. 2012 Aug;40(8):2479-85.