Umbilical venous catheter versus peripherally inserted central catheter in neonates: A randomized controlled trial

20Citations
Citations of this article
76Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) and umbilical venous catheter (UVC) in terms of success rate, complications, cost and time of insertion in neonatal intensive care were compared. Neonates requiring vascular access for minimum 7 days were included. Sample size of 72 per group was determined. Trial was registered at Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI/2015/02/005529). Success rates of the UVC and PICC were 68.1% and 65.3%, respectively (p = 0.724). Mean (SD) time needed for PICC and UVC insertion was 34.13 (34.69) and 28.31 (17.19) min, respectively (p = 0.205). Mean (SD) cost of PICC insertion vs. UVC insertion was 60.9 (8.6) vs. 11.9 (8.7) US dollars (p < 0.0001). Commonest cause for failure of UVC was displacement [6 (8.3%)] and that for PICC was blockage [9 (12.5%)]. Conclusions: UVC is a cheaper alternative to PICC, with similar success rate, short-term complications and time needed for insertion.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Dongara, A. R., Patel, D. V., Nimbalkar, S. M., Potana, N., & Nimbalkar, A. S. (2017). Umbilical venous catheter versus peripherally inserted central catheter in neonates: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Tropical Pediatrics, 63(5), 374–379. https://doi.org/10.1093/tropej/fmw099

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free