Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Randomized trial of percutaneous central venous lines versus peripheral intravenous lines

Journal of Perinatology volume 27, pages 92–96 (2007)Cite this article

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the occurrence of systemic infection or death in preterm infants with elective percutaneous central line (PCVL) placement versus peripheral intravenous catheter (PIV) placement.

Study design:

A total of 96 infants ⩽1250 g or ⩽30 weeks gestation were randomized by 4 days of age to elective placement of a PCVL or continued use of PIV catheters. The primary outcome of systemic infection (defined as a positive blood or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) culture treated for at least 5 days) or death was monitored until the infants did not require intravenous (iv) support for 7 consecutive days.

Results:

Systemic infection or death occurred in 17/46 (39%) infants in the PCVL group and 14/50 (28%) in the PIV group (relative risk (RR)=1.32 with 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70, 2.53; risk difference (RD)=0.09 with 95% CI −0.10, 0.28). The PCVL group had significantly fewer skin punctures for iv access.

Conclusion:

There was no significant difference in systemic infection or death (expressed either as a combined outcome or as separate component outcomes) between the groups. The number of skin punctures was significantly reduced in the PCVL group.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Stoll BJ, Hansen N, Fanaroff AA, Wright LL, Carlo WA, Ehrenkranz RA et al. Late-onset sepsis in very low birth weight neonates: the experience of the NICHD neonatal research network. Pediatrics 2002; 110: 285–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Janes M, Kalyn A, Pinelli J, Paes B . A randomized trial comparing peripherally inserted central venous catheters and peripheral intravenous catheters in infants with very low birth weight. J Pediat Surg 2000; 35: 1040–1044.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Ainsworth SB, Furness J, Fenton AC . Randomized comparative trial between percutaneous longlines and peripheral cannulae in the delivery of neonatal parenteral nutrition. Acta Paediatr 2001; 90: 1016–1020.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Annibale DJ, Bissinger RL, Hulsey TC, Headdon P, Ohning BL . Early percutaneous central venous catheterization (PCVC) in neonates. Pediatr Res 1995; 37: 194A.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ainsworth SB, Clerihew L, McGuire W . Percutaneous central venous catheters versus peripheral cannulae for delivery of parenteral nutrition in neonates [review]. The Cochrane Library 2004; 2: 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Shulz KF, Grimes DA . Sample size calculations in randomized trials: mandatory and mystical. Lancet 2005; 365: 1348–1353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Garland JS, Henrickson K, Maki DG . 2002 Hospital infection control practices advisory committee centers for disease control and prevention. The 2002 hospital infection control practices advisory committee centers of disease control and prevention guideline for prevention of intravascular device-related infection. Pediatrics 2002; 110: 1009–1013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Trotter CW . A national survey of percutaneous central venous catheter practices in neonates. Neonatal Network 1998; 17: 31–38.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Golombek SG, Rohan AJ, Parvez B, Salice AL, LaGamma EF . ‘Proactive’ management of percutaneously inserted central catheters results in decreased incidence of infection in the ELBW population. J Perinatol 2002; 22: 209–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Puchalski M, Hummel P . The reality of neonatal pain. Adv Neonatal Care 2002; 2: 233–244.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Grunau R . Early pain in preterm infants. A model of long-term effects. Clin Perinatol 2002; 29: 373–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pettit J . Assessment of infants with peripherally inserted central catheters: part 1. Detecting the most frequent occurring complications. Adv Neonatal Care 2002; 2: 304–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Beardsall S, White DK, Pinto EM, Kelsall AWR . Pericardial effusion and cardiac tamponade as complications of neonatal long lines: are they really a problem? Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2003; 88: F292–F295.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Cartwright DW . Central venous lines in neonates: a study of 2186 catheters. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2004; 89: F504–F508.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the physicians, staff, Neonatal Transport Team members and parents for their help and support during this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Memorial Hermann Children's Hospital, Houston, TX, USA

    D Wilson

  2. University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA

    M T Verklan

  3. Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas Medical School at Houston, Houston, TX, USA

    K A Kennedy

Authors
  1. D Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M T Verklan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K A Kennedy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K A Kennedy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wilson, D., Verklan, M. & Kennedy, K. Randomized trial of percutaneous central venous lines versus peripheral intravenous lines. J Perinatol 27, 92–96 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7211650

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7211650

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links