A real-world study on the application of modified midline catheter and central venous catheter in medical intensive care unit.
10.3760/cma.j.cn121430-20250317-00252
- Author:
Guo LONG
1
;
Zixi WANG
2
;
Huan PENG
3
;
Xiaoyuan CAO
4
;
Yuxin LIU
5
,
6
;
Li TAN
1
Author Information
1. Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, the Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha 410013, China.
2. Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha 410013, China.
3. Teaching and Research Section of Clinical Nursing, Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha 410008, China.
4. Xiangnan University, Chenzhou 423000, China.
5. Department of General Practice, the Second Affiliated Hospital, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang 421001, China. Corresponding author: Long Guo, Email: lg15116389683@
6. com.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH:
Humans;
Retrospective Studies;
Intensive Care Units;
Catheterization, Central Venous/methods*;
Central Venous Catheters;
Risk Factors;
Length of Stay;
Male;
Female;
Middle Aged;
Adult;
Catheters, Indwelling;
Aged
- From:
Chinese Critical Care Medicine
2025;37(10):956-961
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE:To investigate the differences in indwelling duration, clinical scenarios, and complications between the modified midline catheter (MMC) and the central venous catheter (CVC) in the treatment of patients in the medical intensive care unit (ICU) and the risk factors for complications based on real-world data.
METHODS:A retrospective cohort study was conducted. The adult patients admitted to the medical ICU of the Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University and had undergone placement of either a MMC or a CVC between January 1, 2023, and July 31, 2024, were consecutively enrolled by querying the hospital's electronic medical record system. Based on the type of catheter inserted, the patients were divided into the MMC group and the CVC group. The two groups were compared regarding the selection of catheters in the context of different underlying diseases, the actual clinical application after catheterization, catheter-related complications, the international normalized ratio (INR) and platelet count (PLT) during puncture and catheterization, the length of ICU stay, total length of hospital stay, catheter indwelling duration, and mortality during hospitalization. Multivariate Logistic regression analysis was employed to identify independent risk factors for catheter removal.
RESULTS:Among the 274 patients, 52 received a MMC and 222 received a CVC. The utilization rate of MMC was significantly higher than that of CVC in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), cardiovascular disease, and cancer [ARDS: 92.3% (48/52) vs. 70.3% (156/222), cardiovascular disease: 84.6% (44/52) vs. 54.5% (121/222), cancer: 30.8% (16/52) vs. 17.1% (38/222), all P < 0.05]. However, the use of MMC was significantly lower than CVC when vasoactive drug infusion was required [57.7% (30/52) vs. 79.7% (177/222), P < 0.05]. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the MMC group had a catheter indwelling time ≥ 12 days as compared with the CVC group [32.7% (17/52) vs. 13.5% (30/222), P < 0.05]. There were no statistically significant differences in other underlying diseases, venous access usage, INR and PLT during puncture and catheterization, length of ICU stay, total length of hospital stay, and in-hospital mortality of patients between the two groups. Regarding catheter-related complications, although the incidence of partial or complete catheter removal in the MMC group was significantly higher than that in the CVC group [36.5% (19/52) vs. 5.4% (12/222), P < 0.05], the incidence of puncture site fluid leakage, puncture site skin allergy, and deep vein thrombosis were significantly lower than those in the CVC group [puncture site fluid leakage: 1.9% (1/52) vs. 22.1% (49/222), puncture site skin allergy: 0% (0/52) vs. 20.7% (46/222), deep vein thrombosis: 3.8% (2/52) vs. 16.7% (37/222), all P < 0.05]. Furthermore, the proportion of patients experiencing three or more types of complications in the MMC group was significantly lower than that in the CVC group [5.8% (3/52) vs. 17.6% (39/222), P < 0.05]. Multivariate Logistic regression analysis of risk factors for catheter removal identified the use of a MMC [odds ratio (OR) = 8.518, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) was 3.710-19.560, P < 0.001] and a catheter indwelling time ≥ 12 days (OR = 3.133, 95%CI was 1.297-7.567, P = 0.011) as independent risk factors.
CONCLUSIONS:MMC was more frequently used in patients with ARDS, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, whereas CVC was primarily employed for vasoactive drug infusion. The use of MMC and a longer indwelling time were identified as independent risk factors for catheter removal. Despite a higher removal rate, the overall incidence of complications was significantly lower with MMC than with CVC. These findings suggest that MMC could serve as a routine alternative to CVC in most of clinical scenarios, provided that measures are implemented to prevent removal.
